Amaker v. Lee

ANTHONY D. AMAKER, Plaintiff, v. W. LEE, et al., Defendants.

No. 13-cv-5292(NSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 3, 2019

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Anthony Amaker brings this action against Defendants Anthony J. Annucci, Deputy Commissioner Joseph Bellnier, Assistant Commissioner and Counsel Maureen Boll, Deputy Superintendent Brandow, Lieutenant O. Bucolo, Deputy Superintendent Burnett, Correctional Officer Michael Burzo, Captain Carey, Correctional Officer John Chmielewski, Sergeant John Comforti, Head Cook Ahmed Elmanakhey,¹ Correctional Officer J. Erns, Inspector General Vernon Fonda, Deputy Superintendent Luis Franco, Correctional Officer Hoiston, Deputy Superintendent James Johnson, Sergeant John Johnson, Sergeant Joseph, Deputy Commissioner David-Knapp, Sergeant Ronald Kuntz, Superintendent William Lee, Correction Officer Ryan Lieberman, Assistant Commissioner Jeffrey McCoy, Captain Thomas Melville, Lieutenant Murphy, Inspector William Noonan, Sergeant Kevin O'Connors, L. O'Neill, Calculations Clerk Heather Piquet, and Correction Officer George Santos. ("Second Amended Complaint," ECF No. 87.) Plaintiff asserts claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second AmendedComplaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 12(b)(6). (ECF Nos. 120 & 121.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are derived from the Second Amended Complaint and the documents appended thereto and are assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion.

After filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the Western District of New York, Plaintiff arrived at Green Haven Correctional Facility ("Green Haven") on March 19, 2013. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) Shortly after his arrival, Plaintiff, a member of the Nation of Islam, was denied access to religious services on April 12, 19, and 26 of 2013. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff filed a grievance about these incidents with Defendant Santos on April 26, 2013.² (Id. ¶ 7.)

After Plaintiff filed his grievance, he endured multiple instances of retaliation. For instance, he was issued ill-fitting underwear and Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to exchange the item for the appropriate size. (Id. ¶ 8.) Additionally, Defendants O'Connors and Lee "intentionally deadlocked" a grievance he filed about this issue on June 13, 2013.³ (Id.) Approximately a month later, in July, Plaintiff filed a grievance about a regulation which limited inmates to only tee shirts with pockets in the mess hall after Plaintiff was sent back to his cell without a meal for not wearing a tee shirt with a pocket. (Id. ¶ 9.) That grievance has not been addressed. (Id.) In another incident, Plaintiff purchased a pair of boots, but Defendant Comforti, based on an outdated CORC decision, required Plaintiff to return the boots. (Id. ¶¶ 10 - 11.) Plaintiff had purchased the boots because the state-issued boots dirtied his socks whichcaused him to be in violation of religious principles when he removed his shoes to pray during religious services. (Id. ¶ 11.)

When Ramadan started on July 9, 2013, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to additional violations of his constitutional rights. On July 15, 2013, Defendant Burzo intentionally violated Plaintiff's religious tenants by smoking cigarettes in the gym where Plaintiff and other Nation of Islam members were holding religious services. (Id. ¶ 16.) As part of Ramadan, Plaintiff and others were assigned to prepare and serve meals. (Id. ¶ 12.) On July 17, 2013, during meal preparation, Defendant Elmanakhey put his gloveless hands into the food pan for members of the Nation of Islam. (Id.) Defendant Elmanakhey also told the Nation of Islam food workers that if they did not provide him with two slices of their pizza, he would take what he wanted from their trays; he had a habit of stealing food from the Nation of Islam members and giving it to the Sunni Muslims. (Id. ¶ 13.)

The next day, Plaintiff was cleaning the kitchen and preparing to take his allotted serving of food when Defendant Elmanakhey came in and told him to throw away the extra food. (Id. ¶ 14.) After Plaintiff complied, Defendant Elmanakhey began following him around and asking him what he did with the extra food. (Id.) Plaintiff showed him and others the extra food he had deposited in the trash can, but Defendant Elmanakhey proceeded to berate Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Elmanakhey wanted to "deny [him] the necessary calories intake as everyone else." (Id. ¶ 15.) On July 19, 2013, Defendant Lieberman told Plaintiff that Defendant Elmanakhey did not want Plaintiff working in the mess hall and told Plaintiff to go back to his cell. (Id.) Several officers, including Defendants Burzo, Lieberman, and Hoiston, attempted to intimidate Plaintiff outside of the mess hall when Plaintiff tried to explain that he was entitled to "freedom of [ ] religion during Ramadan" and requested to see Sargent Josephinstead of returning to his cell. (Id.) Defendant Lieberman proceeded to issue Plaintiff a misbehavior report for disobeying a direct order. (Id.)

Plaintiff was issued another misbehavior report on July 21, 2013 from Defendants Lieberman and Elmanakhey in retaliation for a lawsuit Plaintiff had initiated about being deprived of necessary calories during Ramadan. (Id. ¶ 19.) In the report, those Defendants falsely stated that Plaintiff went to the mess hall after he was told not to and that Plaintiff was attempting to smuggle food. (Id.) A hearing was held on July 22, 2013 before Defendant Bucolo who allegedly coached witnesses and wanted to punish Plaintiff for observing Ramadan. (Id. ¶¶ 20 & 34.) Defendant Bucolo sentenced Plaintiff to thirty days in "keeplock." (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff appealed the decision, but his appeal was denied. (Id. ¶ 20.) While Plaintiff was in keeplock, he was denied adequate religion-approved food for at least eight days, and he received no meal on the day he was placed in keeplock. (Id. ¶ 21.)

After Plaintiff was released from keeplock, he was denied access to the court. His access to the law library was restricted which caused him to miss a deadline in his appeal of a state court decision. (Id. ¶ 22.) He was also denied the postage he needed to send legal documents. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff filed a grievance on these issues on October 4, 2013. (Id. ¶ 24.) Sometime after, Plaintiff was moved to a different block where Defendant Erns confronted and verbally harassed him for having more than four bags of property. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff explained that one of his bags was full of legal documents, and Defendant Erns proceeded to search the bags. (Id.) Defendant Kuntz approved the search, causing Plaintiff extreme stress. (Id. ¶¶ 24 - 25.) Later, Plaintiff discussed the issue with Defendant Lee who also approved of the search. (Id. ¶ 25.) Defendant Chmielewski interrupted their conversation to intimidate Plaintiff and proceeded to frisk Plaintiff and confiscate his notes and prayer oil. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a grievance againstDefendants Erns and Kuntz. (Id. ¶ 26.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff received a retaliatory misbehavior report for failing to pick up a spoon in the mess hall. (Id. ¶ 26.) On November 15, 2013, Defendant Kuntz approached Plaintiff to discuss the grievance Plaintiff filed against him, but the grievance has not otherwise been addressed. (Id. ¶ 27.)

On December 10, 2013, the prison was locked down and inmates were told that "in order to send out any mail they had to leave their mail open." (Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff informed Defendants Carey and Johnson that this was a violation of the First Amendment. (Id. ¶ 28.) During the same lockdown, Plaintiff was subjected to a strip search, and this search occurred in front of female correctional officers. (Id. ¶ 29.) As part of the search, inmates, which included Plaintiff, were required to sit on the Body Orifice Security Scanner chair ("BOSS") even though some inmates who sat on the chair had dirty underclothes. (Id.)

Sometime after this incident, and after Plaintiff asked Defendant Bellnier about the inappropriate set up of the Inmate Liaison Committee, Plaintiff was transferred to another maximum-security prison in retaliation for filing lawsuits against the Attica Correctional Facility. (Id. ¶ 30.) This transfer damaged Plaintiff's prospects for early release. (Id.) On top of the transfer, Defendants Noonan, Fonda, and Annucci conspired to keep incorrect information in Plaintiff's records in retaliation for his lawsuits and grievances. (Id. ¶ 32.)

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when the factual content pleaded allows a court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint,they must be supported by factual allegations." Id. at 679. In considering a 12(b)(6) motion, a court must take all material factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor, but a court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (internal quotation marks omitted). A court also need not credit "mere conclusory statements" or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action." Id.

Further, a court is generally confined to the facts alleged in the complaint for the purposes of considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6). Cortec Indus. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 ...