From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cameron v. Goord

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 21, 2008
07 Civ. 1292 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2008)

Opinion

07 Civ. 1292 (TPG).

March 21, 2008


OPINION


Pro se plaintiff Kenneth Cameron, an inmate in the New York Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") system, has brought an action against officials responsible for oversight of DOCS, as well as several correctional officers and a phlebotomist employed by DOCS. Plaintiff's complaint arises out of an incident wherein plaintiff was allegedly restrained by corrections officers and a DNA sample taken from him. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured in this incident.

Plaintiff has filed three motions in this case. He has moved for "the return of any and all DNA samples form the national data base that belong to [plaintiff]. Any and all data bases. Finger prints too." He has also moved for an order directing defendants to send his personal property from the DOCS facility where he was previously detained to the facility where he is currently detained. Plaintiff has also moved for an order directing defendants to respond to his motions, despite the fact that defendants have already done so.

Plaintiff's motion for an order directing the return of his DNA sample must be denied because neither the defendants nor the New York Department of Correctional Services are custodians of any DNA database and have no authority to release any DNA sample.

Plaintiffs motion for the transfer of property appears to refer to a few bags of property belonging to plaintiff that remained at Southport Correctional Facility when plaintiff was transferred from that facility to Rikers Island. Plaintiff wishes for that property to be transferred to him at state expense. DOCS directives provide that an inmate is permitted four bags for transport purposes, with any excess property to be shipped at the inmate's expense. There is no evidence that defendants did not comply with that directive. Plaintiffs motion for the return of his property is therefore denied.

Finally, because defendants have responded to plaintiffs motions, his motion for an order directing them to do so is denied as moot.


Summaries of

Cameron v. Goord

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 21, 2008
07 Civ. 1292 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2008)
Case details for

Cameron v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH CAMERON Plaintiff, v. GLENN S. GOORD, et. al. Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 21, 2008

Citations

07 Civ. 1292 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2008)