Opinion
# 2015-041-510 Claim No. 116532
05-29-2015
KEYRON JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
KEYRON JACKSON Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim based on inmate-on-inmate assault is dismissed after trial where assault on claimant by fellow inmates on December 4, 2008 was not reasonably foreseeable despite defendant having interviewed claimant on November 21, 2008 regarding information defendant had received concerning a potential fight between rival prison gangs to occur the following night, November 22, 2008; claimant, allegedly a member of one of the rival gangs, denied any knowledge of the planned gang fight and refused an offer of protective custody.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-041-510 |
| Claimant(s): | KEYRON JACKSON |
| Claimant short name: | JACKSON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 116532 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | KEYRON JACKSON Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 29, 2015 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Keyron Jackson (claimant) was assaulted at Clinton Correctional Facility (CCF) by fellow inmates on December 4, 2008 and sustained a facial laceration. At the time of the incident, claimant had been incarcerated at CCF for approximately one year. As a result, claimant brings this action alleging that defendant negligently failed to protect him from a foreseeable assault.
"Having 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]). "This duty, however, is limited to providing reasonable care to protect inmates from risks of harm that defendant knew or should have known were foreseeable" (Di Donato v State of New York, 25 AD3d 944 [3d Dept 2006]). "The State . . . is not an insurer of inmate safety, and negligence cannot be inferred solely from the happening of an incident" (Colon v State of New York, 209 AD2d 842, 843 [3d Dept 1994]).
In determining if the State provided reasonable care to protect an inmate from assault the court may consider whether the claimant had previous known encounters with his assailant or had listed his assailant on an " 'enemies list' with the institution" (Elnandes v State of New York, 11 AD3d 828, 829 [3d Dept 2004]). The court may also consider whether the assailant was "a known dangerous prisoner" (Auger v State of New York, 263 AD2d 929, 930 [3d Dept 1999]; see Wilson v State of New York, 36 AD2d 559 [3d Dept 1971]). Further, the court may consider whether "claimant was a known assault risk" (Stanley v State of New York, 239 AD2d 700, 701 [3d Dept 1997]).
The State's potential liability for negligent supervision with respect to an inmate-on-inmate assault is not limited, however, to situations in which actual notice of a particular claimant's vulnerability or a particular assailant's violent propensities can be shown. The State is also charged with the duty of protecting an inmate from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm based upon "what the State reasonably should have known--for example, from its knowledge of risks to a class of inmates based on the institution's expertise or prior experience, or from its own policies and practices designed to address such risks" (Sanchez, 99 NY2d at 254 [emphasis in original]).
The fact that a correction officer is not present at the exact time and place of an assault does not rise to an inference of negligence absent a showing that facility officials had notice of a foreseeable dangerous situation (Colon v State of New York, 209 AD2d 842 [3d Dept 1994]; Padgett v State of New York, 163 AD2d 914 [4th Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 711 [1990]).
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] and § 18 [2]; see Matter of Shabazz v Portuondo, 260 AD2d 733 [3d Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 756).
In general, courts should defer to prison authorities in matters of internal prison security (Matter of Blake v Selsky, 10 AD3d 774, 775 [3d Dept 2004]).
Trial of the claim was conducted on April 2, 2015. Admitted as Exhibit C is a copy of an Interdepartmental Communication dated and written by Correction Officer (CO) Richard Mahuta on November 21, 2008, memorializing an interview he conducted with claimant on that date. Exhibit C states that friction existing between rival factions of the Bloods gang would result, according to an informant, in a fight between the groups the following night, November 22, 2008, and it further identified claimant as a member of one of the gang factions. Exhibit C notes that claimant denied any knowledge of these matters and further notes that claimant had signed a "PC refusal slip." Confirming this fact is Exhibit A, a claimant-signed document dated that day, November 21, 2008, in which claimant denied protective custody and agreed to inform defendant in the future if he felt the need for such protection.
Claimant testified that prior to speaking with CO Mahuta, he had been approached by an unnamed sergeant and advised that a "100% confidential informant" had informed defendant that claimant was going to get hurt. The unnamed sergeant also allegedly told claimant that a "three day investigation" would be undertaken. Claimant says he dismissed the sergeant's information, believing that the informant was confusing him with another inmate named Jackson. None of these testimonial assertions of claimant are otherwise corroborated and, curiously, none of these assertions were included in CO Mahuta's written communication, Exhibit C, which memorialized discussions he had with claimant subsequent to the time claimant asserted he spoke with the unnamed sergeant.
Claimant also testified, less than credibly, that he was not a member of the Bloods, saying he had "affiliations" with the Bloods through a family member, and that he was "not necessarily a member" of the Bloods. Correction Officer Richard Mahuta testified credibly that it was he who had interviewed claimant on November 21, 2008, that it was he who contemporaneously created the document admitted as Exhibit C, and that had he possessed or received information suggesting that claimant was the target of a specific or individual threat, he would have included that information in Exhibit C and that no such information was in fact set forth in Exhibit C. By reason of the foregoing testimony and documentary evidence, the Court credits CO Mahuta and declines to credit claimant.
Claimant testified that he was attacked from behind by approximately five individuals (one of whom he knew), but that he did not see the individual who cut him, reporting, "my back was turned." During cross-examination, claimant also acknowledged the following:
1. Upon arriving at CCF, during his intake evaluation, claimant indicated that he had no known enemies at the facility;
2. Prior to December 4, 2008, the date of the attack, claimant had expressed no concerns to defendant for his safety;
3. Prior to December 4, 2008, claimant had expressed no safety concerns to defendant about any specific individual or individuals;
4. Prior to December 4, 2008, claimant had no prior altercations;
5. Prior to December 4, 2008, claimant had filed no complaints or grievances with defendant concerning potential threats to him or expressing any need for protective custody;
6. Prior to December 4, 2008, claimant had no reason to fear for his safety;
7. Claimant confirmed being interviewed by defendant on November 21, 2008;
8. Between November 21, 2008 and December 4, 2008, claimant neither had any fear for his safety nor had he expressed to defendant any fear for his safety;
9. Prior to December 4, 2008, claimant had never expressed any concerns to defendant or had had any issues or problems with the five individuals he encountered in the North Yard that day; and,
10. Even following the attack upon him on December 4, 2008, claimant again declined protective custody (see Exhibit B).
Subsequent to trial, the Court received and reviewed a number of documents for consideration of admission into evidence. Without defendant objection, the following claimant exhibits were marked and admitted into evidence:
1. Exhibit 1: two color photographs of claimant;
2. Exhibit 2: one page Superintendent response to grievance, dated December 30, 2008;
3. Exhibit 3: one page "TO/FROM" memo dated February 12, 2009; and,
4. Exhibit 4: one page letter to Neazan Aulder dated March 3, 2009.
Beyond crediting the defendant's explanation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the events leading to November 21, 2008, and of the facts and circumstances between November 21, 2008 and December 4, 2008, the Court notes that twelve days elapsed between the date defendant believed a general dispute or altercation between rival Bloods' factions might occur (November 22, 2008) and the date a specific attack upon claimant took place.
By reason of the credited facts and circumstances of this case, the Court finds that the specific targeting of claimant was not a reasonably foreseeable event. Prisons are sometimes violent locations, housing violent individuals who sometimes unpredictably engage in sudden and violent acts. These realities cannot serve as a basis to find that defendant acted negligently under the circumstances set forth in this claim, and to determine otherwise would broaden defendant's duty to that of an insurer of inmate safety.
Moreover, the Court finds that the steps undertaken by defendant in providing certain information it possessed to claimant on November 21, 2008, in interviewing him on November 21, 2008, and in offering him protective custody on November 21, 2008, which he declined (and which he never sought between November 21, 2008 and December 4, 2008, after agreeing on November 21, 2008 to bring to defendant any concerns he had for his safety), were reasonable, appropriate and sufficient to meet its duties and obligations to claimant.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the claimant has failed to prove the claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
The claim is dismissed.
All motions not previously decided, and all applications, including those seeking introduction of exhibits into evidence not herein addressed, are denied.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
May 29, 2015
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims