Samuels v. Fischer
168 F. Supp. 3d 625
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth Samuels, a Sing Sing inmate, alleges on November 16, 2010 he was beaten by corrections officers (Woody, Dawtin, Bellinger and others), suffered head lacerations requiring sutures, then was shackled and held bleeding in a van for hours before ER transport.
- Plaintiff received Tier III disciplinary charges based on misbehavior reports after the incident, was found guilty by hearing officer Brereton, received 30 months in SHU and related sanctions, and exhausted administrative appeals, including an Article 78 that took time to resolve.
- Plaintiff sues multiple officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and due process violations in the disciplinary proceeding; some defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal involvement or failure to state a claim.
- Key factual allegations: supervisory defendants (Fischer, Heath, Keyser) were aware of a pattern of excessive force and failed to train/supervise; employee assistant White failed to interview witnesses or produce requested documents for the Tier III hearing; officers Schrader, Freeman, Luciano allegedly delayed outside medical care.
- Procedurally: Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for the motion, applied pro se liberal construction, and granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal involvement of high‑level supervisors (Fischer, Heath, Keyser) | Supervisors knew of excessive force patterns, failed to train/supervise, received reports and affirmed appeals | Mere receipt of reports, supervisory status, or referral of appeals not enough for § 1983 liability | Dismissed claims against Fischer and Heath for lack of personal involvement; Keyser dismissed except for claim tied to his review of the disciplinary proceeding (survives) |
| Sufficiency of due process claim re: Tier III hearing (Prack, White, Brereton, etc.) | Samuels alleges unfair hearing, denial of witnesses, inadequate employee assistant, and affirmation on appeal | Defendants argue affirmance or provision of assistance does not establish liability; assistance role is limited | Claim against employee assistant White survives (alleged failures to obtain documents/interview witnesses). Claims based on appeal review by Prack/Keyser are not dismissed at this stage (affirmance can support personal involvement) |
| Eighth Amendment failure to intervene (Gamble, Barnes) | Officers present failed to stop or actively participated in the beating; Gamble’s conduct/words showed failure to intervene | Defendants contend verbal remarks alone cannot support § 1983; Barnes argues no realistic opportunity to intervene shown | Claim against Gamble survives (plausible failure to intervene). Claims against Barnes dismissed without prejudice (insufficient allegations of knowledge/opportunity) |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs (Schrader, Freeman, Luciano) | These officers kept Samuels shackled in van for hours despite nurse recommending outside care, causing exacerbated suffering | Defendants argue no deliberate indifference shown or exhaustion issues | Claim survives: allegations plausibly show objectively serious need and subjective deliberate indifference. PLRA exhaustion not resolved on motion; dismissal on that ground denied without prejudice (fact questions and possible Hemphill exceptions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations not presumed true; individual liability requires personal involvement)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (procedural protections for prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest triggered only by atypical and significant hardship)
- Palmer v. Richards, 364 F.3d 60 (duration and conditions of SHU confinement weigh in due process analysis)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (supervisory liability framework for personal involvement)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)