Opinion
# 2020-058-030 Claim No. 129867
05-05-2020
JAVONNE ARCHIBALD v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Javonne Archibald, Pro Se Letitia James, Attorney General By: Thomas Trace, Esq., Associate Attorney
Synopsis
Claim alleging Defendant failed to protect Claimant and provide adequate security in correctional facility gymnasium dismissed after trial.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-058-030 |
| Claimant(s): | JAVONNE ARCHIBALD |
| Claimant short name: | ARCHIBALD |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 129867 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CATHERINE E. LEAHY-SCOTT |
| Claimant's attorney: | Javonne Archibald, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Letitia James, Attorney General By: Thomas Trace, Esq., Associate Attorney |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 5, 2020 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, Javonne Archibald, a pro se inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), seeks damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while in the gymnasium at Marcy Correctional Facility (Marcy). Claimant alleges that, while exercising in the gymnasium, he was assaulted by two inmates for no reason. The trial of this Claim was conducted by videoconference on February 11, 2020, with the parties appearing at Marcy and the Court presiding in Albany, New York. Claimant testified on his own behalf and called no other witnesses. Defendant presented two witnesses, Correction Officer Tuttle (Tuttle) and Correction Captain Valenzano (Valenzano). Claimant offered two exhibits which were received into evidence by stipulation. At the conclusion of Claimant's case and trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the Claim. After considering all the testimony and evidence received at trial, reviewing the applicable law and arguments made by the parties, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss made at the conclusion of trial and dismisses the Claim.
Exhibit 1 consists of a copy of the filed Claim with attachments thereto. Specifically, Exhibit 1 includes the following: two pages of a Claim form; four pages entitled "Claimant Statement"; two pages of an "Affidavit in Support of Application Pursuant to CPLR 1101(f)"; two pages of an "Application for Poor Person Status Pursuant to CPLR 1101(f)"; a one-page Authorization; two pages of two different Affidavits of Service of Proposed Poor Person's Order; a one-page copy of an envelope addressed to the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims; four pages of four different affidavits of service; and a copy of a one-page letter from the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims to Claimant acknowledging receipt and filing of his Claim. Exhibit 2 consists of 14 pages, which include six pages of five "to/from" memoranda, a one-page Voluntary Protective Custody Declination, five pages of an Unusual Incident Report, a one-page Inmate Injury Report, and a one-page Certificate of Records. --------
FACTS
Claimant testified that, on October 20, 2016, while exercising in the weight room area of the gymnasium at Marcy, he was assaulted by two inmates. Claimant explained that while doing push-ups, he was attacked from behind, pinned down by one inmate, and cut by another inmate. His injuries included lacerations to his right ear and earlobe, back, head behind the right ear and face. The injury to his right ear required three sutures. Claimant testified on cross-examination that he had no knowledge someone was going to attack him and that the attack was a surprise. Claimant complained that there was inadequate security in the gymnasium to protect him from this assault. Specifically, Claimant averred that security permitted weapons in the gymnasium area. After testifying, Claimant rested, and Defendant made a motion for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Claim, which the Court reserved decision.
Tuttle testified for the Defense that he was working at Marcy on October 20, 2016 and was charged with the supervision of inmates in the areas of the recreation room and gymnasium. He described there were two other officers who supervised inmates in this area. Tuttle described that inmates enter the gymnasium and pass through a metal detector. Inmates are mandated to empty their pockets and have personal items searched. Tuttle acknowledged that not all inmates are patted down and/or frisked when entering the recreation room and gymnasium and stated that it is possible for inmates to conceal a weapon on their person which can avoid detection when passing through a metal detector. Tuttle further testified he did not witness the attack on Claimant but observed him standing in the doorway of the weight room with blood and a visible cut on his face. Tuttle explained that he conducted a search of the gymnasium and weight room area and found two weapons secreted in a hollowed-out leg of a weight storage rack.
Valenzano testified he was working on October 20, 2016 and held the rank of Lieutenant at that time. He was the afternoon watch commander charged with overseeing all security supervisors, security personnel, and inmates. Valenzano testified there were two officers who were charged with the responsibility of roving throughout the gymnasium on October 20, 2016. Valenzano also described security measures undertaken on that day, which included requiring inmates to pass through a metal detector before entering the gymnasium as well as having inmates' property searched. Valenzano further testified that Claimant and the two inmates who attacked Claimant were not on an established DOCCS' list requiring them to be separated, nor did any officer have any advance warning that an attack would occur by the inmates against Claimant.
DISCUSSION
The Court of Appeals has held that "[h]aving assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the State owes a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates" (Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247, 252 [2002]; see Flaherty v State of New York, 296 NY 342, 346 [1947]). The duty does not, however, render the State an insurer of inmate safety (see Sanchez, 99 NY2d at 253; Melendez v State of New York, 283 AD2d 729, 729 [3d Dept 2001], lv dismissed 97 NY2d 649 [2001]). Rather, the "scope of the State's duty to protect inmates is limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable" (Sanchez, 99 NY2d at 253).
Foreseeability in this context encompasses both actual and constructive notice. Consequently, liability may arise from what the State knew or should have known regarding (1) the risk of harm to a class of inmates based on the institutional expertise or experience (see Sanchez, 99 NY2d at 254; Pitts v State of New York, 166 AD3d 1505, 1505 [4th Dept 2018]; Brown v City of New York, 95 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2d Dept 2012]; compare Vasquez v State of New York, 68 AD3d 1275 [3d Dept 2009]), (2) the dangerous propensities of the assailant (see Adeleke v County of Suffolk, 156 AD3d 748, 749 [2d Dept 2017]; Wassmann v County of Ulster, 144 AD3d 1470, 1472 [3d Dept 2016]; Blake v State of New York, 259 AD2d 878, 879 [3d Dept 1999]; Littlejohn v State of New York, 218 AD2d 833, 834 [3d Dept 1995]), or (3) the risk of an assault and the failure to prevent it despite an opportunity to do so (see Huertas v State of New York, 84 AD2d 650, 650-651 [3d Dept 1981]).
Stated differently, to establish liability on the State in a case involving an inmate upon inmate assault, Claimant will need to prove that the State knew or should have known that there was a risk of harm to the inmate claimant that was reasonably foreseeable and inadequately addressed (see Sanchez, 99 NY2d at 253; see also Flaherty, 296 NY at 347). The mere fact that a correction officer is not present at the precise time and place of an assault, for example, does not give rise to an inference of negligence absent a showing that officials had notice, actual or constructive, of a foreseeable dangerous situation (see e.g. Colon v State of New York, 209 AD2d 842, 844 [3d Dept 1994]; Padgett v State of New York, 163 AD2d 914, 915 [4th Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 711 [1990]; Lopez v State of New York, UID No. 2019-028-503 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., Jan. 22, 2019]). Thus, the central issue in claims arising from an inmate-on-inmate assault is whether the State had notice of the risk of harm and an opportunity to intervene in a way that would have prevented the assault, but failed to do so (see Huertas, 84 AD2d at 650-651; see also Williams v State of New York, UID No. 2003-031-501 [Ct Cl, Minarik, J., Jan. 13, 2003]).
When persons with dangerous criminal propensities are held in close quarters, inevitably there will be some risk of unpreventable assault, a risk the State cannot possibly eradicate. However, "[t]he mere occurrence of an inmate assault, without credible evidence that the assault was reasonably foreseeable, cannot establish the negligence of the State" (Sanchez, 99 NY2d at 256; Elnandes v State of New York, 11 AD3d 828, 829 [3d Dept 2004]).
In this case Claimant has provided no evidence that the assault perpetrated upon him was foreseeable. Indeed, Claimant concedes that the attack was unprovoked and was a surprise to him. Claimant has not proven that there was any risk of harm to him, that the attackers had any dangerous propensities, or that Defendant knew or should have known of an assault and failed to prevent said attack.
Moreover, Claimant's contention that Defendant failed to provide adequate security is of no moment. A correctional facility superintendent has discretion to "provide for such measures as he may deem necessary or appropriate for the safety, security and control of correctional facilities" (see Correction Law § 137 [2]; see Matter of Shabazz v Portuondo, 260 AD2d 733, 733 [3d Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 756 [1999]). In general, courts should defer to prison authorities in matters of internal prison security (see Matter of Blake v Selsky, 10 AD3d 774, 775 [3d Dept 2004]). The Court will not review Defendant's discretionary security measures implemented in the gymnasium, especially considering the attack on Claimant was not reasonably foreseeable (see e.g. Jackson v State of New York, UID No. 2015-041-503 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., Jan. 16, 2015]; Velasquez v State of New York, UID No. 2011-044-008 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., Oct. 6, 2011]).
Therefore, upon consideration of the testimony of Claimant and the witnesses who testified, observing their demeanor while testifying, as well as examining the documentary evidence received at trial, it is the finding of this Court that Claimant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that Defendant failed to protect Claimant.
Accordingly, Claim Number 129867 is dismissed. Any and all other evidentiary rulings or motions on which the Court may have previously reserved or which were not previously determined, are hereby denied.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
May 5, 2020
Albany, New York
CATHERINE E. LEAHY-SCOTT
Judge of the Court of Claims