From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ocasio v. Conway

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Jul 27, 2010
10-CV-6201Fe (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2010)

Opinion

10-CV-6201Fe.

July 27, 2010


DECISION and ORDER


By Order dated May 6, 2010, plaintiff was directed to amend his complaint (Docket # 4). Plaintiff has now amended the complaint and the Court has reviewed it under the standards of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.

Plaintiff again has organized his complaint into two claims. He again combines diverse allegations occurring over a period of several years and at several correctional facilities in each claim. These claims are stated with even less specificity that in his original complaint, except as to one allegation in the Second Claim.

With regard to the First Claim, the Court cannot determine if the broad allegations of failure to provide medical care and various other violations could state a claim against any of the twenty-six defendants because of plaintiff's failure to "be specific as to what his complaint is, and who did what, at what specific time, and at what Correctional Facility," as the Court directed him to do. (Docket No. 4.) The First Claim is therefore dismissed.

The portion of the Second Claim wherein plaintiff alleges that defendant Konesky threw plaintiff out of a mental health program at Wende in March of 2009 for which a forensic committee had approved him in retaliation for his complaints can go forward to be answered at this stage (page 2 of 4 of Second Claim). All other defendants and purported violations plaintiff may have intended to include in the Second Claim are dismissed for failure to "be specific as to what his complaint is, and who did what, at what specific time, and at what Correctional Facility," as the Court directed plaintiff to do.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file plaintiffs papers, and to cause the United States Marshal to serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon defendant Konesky without plaintiffs payment therefor, unpaid fees to be recoverable if this action terminates by monetary award in plaintiffs favor.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the sole remaining defendant, Ms. Kelly Konesky, is directed to answer the complaint.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ocasio v. Conway

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Jul 27, 2010
10-CV-6201Fe (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2010)
Case details for

Ocasio v. Conway

Case Details

Full title:OMAR OCASIO, Plaintiff, v. Mr. JAMES CONWAY, Supt. Attica Corr. Fac.; Mr…

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

Date published: Jul 27, 2010

Citations

10-CV-6201Fe (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2010)