256 F. Supp. 3d 154
N.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiff Jamel Clark, a DOCCS inmate, sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events at Shawangunk C.F. in 2014; he sought IFP status and appointment of counsel. The IFP application was granted and counsel request denied without prejudice.
- Clark alleges multiple disciplinary hearings (Aug–Nov 2014) in which he was denied employee assistants, witnesses, documents, and written dispositions; several convictions led to aggregate SHU time exceeding 300 days, later administratively reversed for four hearings.
- Clark alleges physical assaults and sexualized touching by corrections officers (notably C.O. DeGraff, C.O. Caramonos, C.O. McElroy, Sgt. Harrison), excessive force while escorted, and threats/harassment; he alleges one inmate-on-inmate assault in September 2014 while C.O. Mets supervised.
- Clark alleges retaliation by officers for filing grievances (assault and destruction of mattress), inadequate medical care for a separated shoulder by Dr. Lee and missed physical therapy due to escort failures, and cold/poor SHU conditions.
- The court performed initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and dismissed some claims (and official-capacity monetary claims) while permitting certain claims to proceed and ordering service on remaining defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP & counsel | Clark sought IFP and appointed counsel | No dispute on IFP; counsel not necessary yet | IFP granted; counsel denied without prejudice |
| Official-capacity monetary liability | Clark seeks damages from supervisory DOCCS officials | Eleventh Amendment bars damages against state actors in official capacity | Official-capacity damages dismissed with prejudice |
| First Amendment retaliation | Clark claims officers retaliated for grievances (assault, mattress destruction) | Defendants would argue absence of causal link or non-retaliatory motive | Retaliation claims against C.O. DeGraff and C.O. Caramonos survive review and require response |
| Eighth Amendment excessive force & failure-to-protect | Clark alleges physical assaults by officers and failure to protect from inmate attack | Supervisors argue no personal involvement; some officers deny misconduct | Excessive force claims survive as to DeGraff, Caramonos, McElroy, Harrison; failure-to-protect against C.O. Mets dismissed for insufficient facts; supervisory excessive-force claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Conditions of confinement (cold SHU) | Clark alleges SHU cell was extremely cold, required constant dressing | Defendants would dispute knowledge/deliberate indifference by named supervisors | Conditions claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead supervisory awareness |
| Medical care (deliberate indifference) | Clark alleges delayed/time-insensitive treatment for shoulder; missed PT due to escorts | Dr. Lee lacked knowledge of missed appointments; treatment not deliberately indifferent | Medical-care claim against Dr. Lee dismissed without prejudice |
| Due process at disciplinary hearings | Clark alleges denial of assistant, witnesses, evidence, biased officers, and inadequate written findings | Defendants would argue some process was afforded and findings supported | Due-process claims against multiple hearing officers and supervisors survive and require response |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient; supervisory liability limits)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive-force standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference and duty to protect)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (due process protections in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (when disciplinary segregation implicates liberty interest)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. supervisory liability framework for prison claims)
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649 (aggregation and atypicality analysis for SHU confinement)