55 F. Supp. 3d 478
W.D.N.Y.2014Background
- In March 2013, Bradt (Superintendent) and Prack (DOCCS Director of Special Housing) removed McCloud from protective custody to general population despite known inmate risk.
- After return to general population, McCloud informed Officer Griffin of threats; on March 5, 2013, Griffin opened McCloud's cell door to allow two inmates to assault him.
- Inmates who attacked McCloud allegedly doused him with feces; Griffin retrieved a fire hose and sprayed him for several minutes, calling him a “crybaby.”
- McCloud received a misbehavior report for an unhygienic act and was placed in solitary; he was treated at Erie County Medical Center after the assault.
- Olles, the investigator, allegedly conducted a deliberately poor investigation under direction of Shepanski; misbehavior reports were dismissed and McCloud’s grievance was denied; McCloud sues for failure-to-protect, negligent supervision, Eighth Amendment injury from the hose, destruction of evidence, and conspiracy; Defendants move to dismiss all but the failure-to-protect claim against Bradt and Griffin.
- Order: the motion to dismiss is granted; only the failure-to-protect claim against Bradt and Griffin remains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Destruction of evidence/denial of due process | Olles and Shepanski hid evidence to cover up Griffin | No due process right to governmental investigation; no constitutional violation | Claims against Olles/Shepanski dismissed |
| Conspiracy to cover up assault | Olles/Shepanski conspired with Griffin | Conspiracy requires underlying violation and overt act; conclusory claims insufficient | Conspiracy claim dismissed |
| Eighth Amendment fire-hose claim | Griffin’s spraying caused injury or mental anguish | No physical injury shown; emotional injury not recoverable without physical injury | Independent Eighth Amendment claim against Griffin dismissed |
| Failure-to-protect claim against Prack | Prack involved in removal from protective custody | No personal involvement by Prack shown | Claim against Prack dismissed |
| Official-capacity claims | Requests against defendants in official capacities | Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity claims where no injunctive relief sought | All official-capacity claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.1999) (conspiracy element requires overt act and agreement to injure)
- Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir.2002) (requires amplified misconduct for conspiracy claims)
- Marrero v. Kirkpatrick, 659 F.Supp.2d 422 (W.D.N.Y.2009) (conspiracy allegations must be specific, not conclusory)
- Rosales v. Kikendall, 677 F.Supp.2d 643 (W.D.N.Y.2010) (conspiracy claims subject to similar pleading standards)
- Abney v. Jopp, 655 F.Supp.2d 231 (W.D.N.Y.2009) (Grievance-interference claims require prejudice to access; not shown)
- Fedor v. Kudrak, 421 F.Supp.2d 473 (D.Conn.2006) (prejudice to access to courts not shown where litigation not hindered)
- Patterson v. Burge, 328 F.Supp.2d 878 (N.D. Ill.2004) (destruction of evidence can raise access-to-courts claim in some contexts)