968 F. Supp. 2d 532
W.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Anthony Washington, pro se §1983 plaintiff, formerly in DOCS custody, sued sixteen Southport Correctional Facility employees.
- Plaintiff’s claims arise from 2008 incidents over several months, including feces cleanup and a strip-search incident.
- Plaintiffs theories include Eighth Amendment, First Amendment (Free Exercise), equal protection, retaliation, due process, and supervisory liability.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court’s analysis addresses whether alleged harms, injuries, or deprivations satisfy constitutional standards; decision grants in part and denies in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment claim for cleaning feces | Washington claims orders to clean feces without proper equipment violated Eighth Amendment. | Defendants argue no cognizable injury occurred; alleged danger was not realized. | Plaintiff fails to show actual injury; Eighth Amendment claim dismissed. |
| Religious exercise—meals and services | Denial of religious meals and attendance hindering Islam practice. | Policies reasonably related to penological interests; burdens de minimis. | Religious-meal claim dismissed; limited attendance claim dismissed; no substantial or undue burden proven. |
| Cell assignment and religious impact | Cellmate assignment exposed to profane content, burdening prayer. | No constitutional right to choose cellmate; rational security concerns justify assignments. | Cell/cellmate claims fail to state Free Exercise violation. |
| Due process in disciplinary hearing | Hearing officer biased; disciplinary finding and 30-day keeplock improperly weighed. | Hearing standards require at least some evidence; bias allegations insufficient. | Plaintiff states facially valid due process claim against Donahue; bias evidence supports claim. |
| Retaliation against grievances | Defendants retaliated for grievances with misbehavior reports and discipline. | Conjectural causal links; not every adverse action supports retaliation. | Some retaliation claims survive (Evertts, Deming, Faucett, Waters, and Deming-related events); others dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156 (2d Cir.2001) (reckless exposure to inmate's waste can support Eighth Amendment claim)
- Ochs v. Thalacker, 90 F.3d 293 (8th Cir.1996) (cell assignments implicate security; burdens on religion may be permissible)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations evaluated for reasonable relation to penological interests)
- Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir.2003) (free exercise rights balanced against institutional interests; reasonable standards)