From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lyons v. McGinnis

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Jun 16, 2004
No. 04-CV-6157L(P) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2004)

Opinion

No. 04-CV-6157L(P).

June 16, 2004


ORDER


INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Daevon Lyons, an inmate of the Attica Correctional Facility, has filed this pro se action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket No. 1) and has both requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a signed Authorization (Docket No. 2). Plaintiff claims that the defendants, Commissioner Glenn Goord, Southport Correctional Facility Superintendent Michael McGinnis, Upstate Correctional Facility Roy A. Girdich, Attica Correctional Facility Superintendent James Conway, Supervisor of the Upstate Inmate Grievance Office L. Peary, and Southport Deputy Superintendent John Doe, violated his constitutional rights. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's request to proceed as a poor person is granted, some of plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and service is directed for the remaining claims.

PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff claims that defendants have engaged in a conspiracy intended to force him to incriminate himself by subjecting him to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement. He asserts that the supervisory defendants approved of a course of treatment that violated his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. As a result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff claims he has been continually deprived the basic necessities of human life between August 5, 2002 to March 31, 2004, at Southport, Upstate, and Attica Correctional Facilities. He asserts that he has been harassed, crowded, fed contaminated food, and beaten. Specifically, he asserts that, at intervals between November 8, 2002 and June 16, 2003, he was denied meals. Thereafter, other inmates were told to contaminate his food. Additionally, between June 18, 2003 and December 26, 2003, his meal rations were reduced to one-third the normal size. He asserts that between October 1, 2003 and December 26, 2003, Correctional Officers Manning, Dabiew and Donovan only permitted him an hour or two of sleep each day. They kept him awake by running machine that emitted a loud noise each night during the 10:00 pm to 6:00 am shift. This same practice allegedly continued at Attica Correctional Facility from March 1, 2004 to the date the complaint was filed. He complains that he has been under constant visual and audio surveillance since November 8, 2002, because camera equipment has been installed in each of his cells. He claims that the intentional psychological abuse is designed to get him to confess to a crime that he did not do. Several individuals, including the Deputy Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, have told him to "give up" and confess or things would get "worse." Other inmates have allegedly been recruited to further harass and compel him to confess.

As a result, he has suffered on-going pain, headaches, exhaustion, and emotional distress. He states that he attempted to commit suicide on December 22 and 23, 2003, because of the abusive conditions. Further, he claims that he filed grievances regarding these complaints throughout the Fall of 2003; specifically on October 20, November 4, November 17, November 25, December 15, and December 17. Yet Inmate Grievance Office Supervisor L. Peary intentionally ignored or mis-handled the grievances in order to prevent plaintiff from exhausting his administrative remedies. He is seeking one million dollars in damages.

DISCUSSION

Because plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and filed an Authorization with respect to this action, plaintiff is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28 U.S.C. provides that the Court shall dismiss a case in which in forma pauperis status has been granted if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) requires the Court to conduct an initial screening of "a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity," id., regardless of whether or not the inmate has sought in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

In evaluating the complaint, the Court must accept as true all factual allegations and must draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. See King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1999). Dismissal is not appropriate "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). "This rule applies with particular force where the plaintiff alleges civil rights violations or where the complaint is submitted pro se." Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 701 (2d Cir. 1998). Based on its evaluation of the complaint, the Court finds that several of plaintiff's claims must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b) because they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "To state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the challenged conduct (1) was attributable to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Whalen v. County of Fulton, 126 F.3d 400, 405 (2d. Cir. 1997) (citing Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 875-76 (2d Cir. 1994)).

Fourth Amendment Claims

Plaintiff alleges that defendants have installed 24-hour video and audio surveillance in his cell at each Correctional Facility where he has been housed since November 8, 2002. While plaintiff clearly finds this intrusive, such surveillance is not a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches. "One of the incidents of confinement for a convict is the loss of privacy, which serves the legitimate purpose of retribution as well as the institutional security needs of the prison system. We therefore hold that 'society is not prepared to recognize as legitimate any subjective expectation of privacy that a [convict] might have in his prison cell.'" Willis v. Artuz, et al., 301 F.3d 65, 69 (2d. Cir. 2002) (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984)). Accordingly, plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Because plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and filed an Authorization with respect to the filing fee, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby granted. For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A.

With respect to the remaining claims, it may be that plaintiff may fail to prove his claims, but the Court's uncertainty that plaintiff will ultimately succeed on the merits is no justification for a dismissal at this stage of the case. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) ("Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); and see McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004). "However unlikely it may appear to a court from a plaintiff's complaint that he will ultimately be able to prove an alleged fact such as mental state, the court may not go beyond FRCP 8(a)(2) to require the plaintiff to supplement his pleadings with additional facts that support his allegation of knowledge either directly or by inference." Phelps v. Kapnolas, 308 F.3d 180 (2d. Cir. 2002).

Since the Court cannot say at this stage that "'it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle him to relief,'" Staron v. McDonald's Corp., 51 F.3d 353, 355 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)), the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve the summons and complaint on Commissioner Glenn Goord, Southport Correctional Facility Superintendent Michael McGinnis, Upstate Correctional Facility Roy A. Girdich, Attica Correctional Facility Superintendent James Conway, and Supervisor of the Upstate Inmate Grievance Office L. Peary. Plaintiff is directed to identify defendant John Doe through discovery as soon as possible, and then apply to this Court for an order directing amendment of the caption and service on the defendant as soon as he has been identified.

ORDER

IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

FURTHER, that plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice;

FURTHER, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file plaintiff's papers, and to cause the United States Marshal to serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon Commissioner Glenn Goord, Southport Correctional Facility Superintendent Michael McGinnis, Upstate Correctional Facility Roy A. Girdich, Attica Correctional Facility Superintendent James Conway, and Supervisor of the Upstate Inmate Grievance Office L. Peary without plaintiff's payment therefor, unpaid fees to be recoverable if this action terminates by monetary award in plaintiff's favor;

FURTHER, that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the defendants are directed to answer the complaint.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lyons v. McGinnis

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Jun 16, 2004
No. 04-CV-6157L(P) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2004)
Case details for

Lyons v. McGinnis

Case Details

Full title:DAEVON LYONS, 01-R-4760, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL McGINNIS, GLENN GOORD, ROY…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2004

Citations

No. 04-CV-6157L(P) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2004)