Hamilton v. Kerik

Full title: DERRICK HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. BERNARD B. KERIK, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Dec 19, 2002

01 Civ. 6934 (GEL) (HBP) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2002)

Opinion

01 Civ. 6934 (GEL) (HBP)

December 19, 2002

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HENRY PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

By letter dated July 1, 2002, which has been docketed as a motion (Docket Item 20), plaintiff seeks a Court Order directing the New York State Department of Correctional Services to grant plaintiff permission to meet with Nicole Esters on a daily basis during a specified period of time in order to facilitate the preparation of plaintiff's case. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff is seeking damages for certain conduct allegedly committed by employees of the New York City Department of Corrections while transporting plaintiff. Plaintiff is now a sentenced prisoner in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. It appears that plaintiff is currently housed in punitive segregation and seeks expanded visitation rights because his incarceration in punitive segregation makes it extremely difficult for him to prepare his case.

There are several significant defects in plaintiff's application. First plaintiff's motion has not been served on counsel for defendants, and plaintiff has not explained why the matter should be considered on an ex parte basis.

Second, plaintiff makes no claim and offers no evidence that his incarceration in punitive segregation is in retaliation for the filing of this lawsuit, and, indeed, makes no claim that his incarceration in punitive segregation is improper in any way. State officials have wide discretion concerning the administration of prison facilities, and an inmate's unilateral act of commencing a lawsuit is simply not a valid basis for a Federal Court to interfere in the administration of such facilities. Stated slightly differently, in the absence of evidence of retaliation, the mere filing of a lawsuit has no effect whatsoever on the scope of a prisoner's rights within the institution.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for an Order directing the New York State Department of Correctional Services to grant plaintiff permission to meet with Nicole Esters on a daily basis is denied in all respects.