661 F. App'x 16
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Michael Shaw, pro se, sued prison officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: (a) supervisory-liability claims against Superintendent Rollin Larkin and Captain Russo, and (b) an Eighth Amendment sexual-misconduct claim against Corrections Officer Simon Prindle.
- Incident: Prindle conducted a pat frisk of Shaw searching for contraband (stamps); Shaw alleges prolonged, intimate contact over clothing (crotch, between buttocks) and massaging of rectum/groin.
- Procedural history: District Court dismissed supervisory-liability claims on the pleadings and granted summary judgment for Prindle on the Eighth Amendment claim; District Court also denied Shaw’s discovery request for past grievances against Prindle.
- Shaw appealed the dismissal, summary judgment, and denial of discovery; Second Circuit reviewed 12(c) and summary judgment de novo and discovery denial for abuse of discretion.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: (1) supervisory claims dismissed for failing to plead defendants’ actual notice or dates of prior complaints; (2) summary judgment for Prindle because no evidence showed sexual motivation or intent to humiliate; (3) denial of discovery was not an abuse of discretion because it related to dismissed supervisory claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supervisory liability (against Larkin & Russo) | Shaw alleged supervisors knowingly allowed Prindle’s sexual misconduct based on prior complaints. | Supervisors lacked notice; complaint did not plead dates or that supervisors were in post when complaints were made. | Dismissed: Shaw failed to plausibly plead supervisory liability under Colon. |
| Eighth Amendment sexual-misconduct claim (against Prindle) | Search was excessively intrusive and constituted sexual contact intended to humiliate or gratify Prindle. | The frisk was a legitimate search for contraband; no evidence of sexual motivation or intent to humiliate; conducted in presence of others. | Summary judgment for Prindle: no genuine issue that contact was incidental to a legitimate search. |
| Discovery of past grievances against Prindle | Shaw sought grievance records to show pattern and notice to supervisors. | Records related to supervisory claims that were dismissed; discovery unnecessary. | Denial affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion because discovery related to dismissed claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983)
- Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 2015) (Eighth Amendment: sexualized officer contact violates constitution if intended to gratify or humiliate)
- Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001) (two-prong Eighth Amendment standard: objective seriousness and culpable state of mind)
- Kirkendall v. Halliburton, Inc., 707 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2013) (inferences about notice from letters/grievances at pleading stage)