Opinion
# 2015-041-504 Claim No. 114624
01-27-2015
ANDREW JAMES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ANDREW JAMES Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael C. Rizzo, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim alleging that correction officers assaulted inmate/claimant without provocation on two separate dates is dismissed after trial where claimant's testimony lacked credibility and was contradicted by unchallenged testimony and records produced by defendant, including proof that claimant pled guilty to an assault on staff in one of the incidents underlying the claim.
Case information
UID: | 2015-041-504 |
Claimant(s): | ANDREW JAMES |
Claimant short name: | JAMES |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 114624 |
Motion number(s): | |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
Claimant's attorney: | ANDREW JAMES Pro Se |
Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael C. Rizzo, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | January 27, 2015 |
City: | Albany |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Andrew James (claimant), an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility (CCF) in 2007, alleges in his claim that on two separate dates, February 16, 2007 and April 8, 2007, he was assaulted by correction officers at CCF without provocation and in retaliation for claimant complaining about the treatment of another inmate.
Claim erroneously refers to February 15, 2007 as the first date though the evidence shows the actual date as February 16, 2007.
Trial of the claim was conducted on December 18, 2014, and claimant was his only trial witness. Claimant testified that on February 16, 2007, after being asked by Sergeant (Sgt.) Rendel if claimant had authored a letter complaining of the treatment of a fellow inmate, Sgt. Rendel and Correction Officer (CO) Snide punched him, twisted his leg, handcuffed him and dragged him by handcuffs between housing companies, before escorting claimant to medical. The foregoing represents, in its entirety, the substantive portion of claimant's direct testimony concerning the events of February 16, 2007.
Claimant's testimony was undermined and discredited by his acknowledgment upon cross-examination that, despite knowing he would receive six months in the Special Housing Unit with substantially restricted privileges, he pled guilty at a Tier III disciplinary hearing, in response to having been issued a misbehavior report charging him with assault upon staff. Claimant's testimony was further impeached by Exhibit A, contemporaneously created documents comprising a "use of force report" detailing the events of February 16, 2007, which describes claimant becoming loud in response to Sgt. Rendel's questioning, refusing Sgt. Rendel's order to leave the interview room, and then moving quickly toward Sgt. Rendel, necessitating the use of physical force upon claimant.
Claimant further testified concerning the events of April 8, 2007, asserting that, having passed out in his cell, he awoke to find Sgt. Rendel kicking him and handcuffing him. He testified that upon being taken to medical, he was given medicine after an EKG discerned an elevated heart rate.
Upon cross-examination, claimant agreed that the events described above occurred at approximately 3:15 p.m., and that earlier that day, at approximately 11:30 a.m., he had complained of chest pains.
Correction Officer (now Sgt.) Justin Delisle testified that on April 8, 2007, claimant was found on his stomach in his housing unit, and he was not responding to staff directions given him. Correction Officer Delisle further testified that no one struck claimant and that claimant eventually responded to commands, was handcuffed and walked to medical. No use of force reports were filed, as would have been required if force upon claimant had been used, and Sgt. Rendel and CO Delisle escorted claimant to medical, which would not have been permitted if it had been they who had used force upon claimant. The Court credits the testimony of CO Delisle. Additionally, corroborating CO Delisle's testimony is Exhibit C, a copy of a log book for April 8, 2007, which details claimant's complaints of chest pains at 11:30 a.m., and further notes that claimant complained of a heart attack and that he was initially unresponsive to staff at 3:15 p.m., prior to being taken to medical at 3:18 p.m.
The use of physical force against an inmate is governed by statute, regulation and case law. Correction Law § 137 (5) provides as follows:
"No inmate in the care or custody of the department shall be subjected to degrading treatment, and no officer or other employee of the department shall inflict any blows whatever upon any inmate, unless in self defense, or to suppress a revolt or insurrection. When any inmate, or group of inmates, shall offer violence to any person, or do or attempt to do any injury to property, or attempt to escape, or resist or disobey any lawful direction, the officers and employees shall use all suitable means to defend themselves, to maintain order, to enforce observation of discipline, to secure the persons of the offenders and to prevent any such attempt or escape."
Correction officers may use physical force to maintain order and discipline in correctional facilities, but "[w]here it is necessary to use physical force, only such degree of force as is reasonably required shall be used" (7 NYCRR 251-1.2[b]).
The limited circumstances in which use of force is permitted by correction officers are set forth at 7 NYCRR 251-1.2[d]:
"[F]or self-defense; to prevent injury to person or property; to enforce compliance with a lawful direction; to quell a disturbance; or to prevent an escape."
In claims involving inmate allegations of excessive force by correction officers, the credibility of the witnesses is generally the dispositive factor (Davis v State of New York, 203 AD2d 234 [2nd Dept 1994]). To determine whether the use of force was necessary and, if so, whether the force used was excessive or unreasonable, a court must examine the specific circumstances confronting the officers (see Wester v State of New York, 247 AD2d 468 [2nd Dept 1998]; Lewis v State of New York, 223 AD2d 800 [3d Dept 1996]; Quillen v State of New York, 191 AD2d 31 [3d Dept 1993]; Arnold v State of New York, 108 AD2d 1021 [3d Dept 1985], appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 723 [1985]).
The Court does not credit claimant's testimony concerning the events of either February 16, 2007 or April 8, 2007. The claimant has failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence. The claim is dismissed.
All motions not previously decided are hereby denied.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
January 27, 2015
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims