Burroughs v. Mitchell

325 F.Supp.3d 249

Lorcen BURROUGHS, Plaintiff,

v.Joyce MITCHELL, Joyce Mitchell, Tailor Shop Seamstress, Clinton Correctional Facility, Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor, New York State, Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, John Doe #1, Clinton ID Photographer, Corrections Officer, John Doe #2, Property Corrections Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Jane Doe #3, Nurse, Upstate Correctional Facility, John Doe #4, NYS Police Investigator, John/Jane Doe #4, Corrections Officer, Emergency Response Younger Officer, John Doe #6, Corrections Officer, Emergency Response Older Officer, John Doe #7, Investigator, Office of Special Investigations, John Doe #8, Cell Property Pack-Up Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Eileen M. Nerf, Supervising Budgeting Analyst, DOCCS, Payton, Investigator, Office of Special Investigations, Steve Racette, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, Terry Burnett, Corrections Lieutenant, Clinton Correctional Facility, Tim Harding, Corrections Sergeant, Clinton Correctional Facility, Woods, Sergeant, Clinton Correctional Facility, Don Quinn, Deputy Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, Stephen Brown, Deputy Superintendent of Security, Clinton Correctional Facility, Tanner Williams, Corrections Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Gene Palmer, Corrections Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Scott Giguere, Corrections Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Larry Dearborn, Corrections Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Ron Blair, Corrections Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Tom Renadette, Corrections Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Bob Fitzgerald, Registered Nurse II, Clinton Correctional Facility, Donald G. Uhler, Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility, Tabb, Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator, Upstate Correctional Facility, Shattuck, Corrections Sergeant, Upstate Correctional Facility, Phil Melecio, Deputy Superintendent of Programs, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, S. Winchell, Corrections Lieutenant, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, E. Cucchi, Correction Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, and Edward Carpenter, Corrections Officer/Claim Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Defendants.

9:18-CV-0679 (DNH/ATB)

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed September 6, 2018

LORCEN BURROUGHS, Plaintiff, pro se, 08-B-3022, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Box 51, Comstock, NY 12821

DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by plaintiff Lorcen Burroughs ("Burroughs" or "plaintiff") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983") that asserts claims arising out of his confinement in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiff, who is currently confined at Great Meadow Correctional Facility ("Great Meadow C.F."), has not paid the statutory filing fee and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 12 ("IFP Application").¹

II. IFP APPLICATION

On June 28, 2018, Burroughs filed an IFP Application that was not certified by an appropriate official at plaintiff's facility. Dkt. No. 9. Additionally, plaintiff did not provide copies of his inmate account statements. Accordingly, that application (Dkt. No. 9) is incomplete and denied. However, on June 29, 2018, plaintiff provided a second IFP Application. Dkt. No. 12.

" 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in a federal court without prepayment of the filing fee that would ordinarily be charged." Cash v. Bernstein , No. 09-CV-1922, 2010 WL 5185047, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010). Notably, Section 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis where, absent a showing of "imminent danger of serious physical injury," a prisoner has filed three or more actions or appeals that were subsequently dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

After reviewing the information that Burroughs provided in this second application, it is found that he meets the financial criteria for commencing this action in forma pauperis. And based upon a review of Burroughs's litigation history on the Federal Judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records ("PACER") Service, it does not appear that he has accumulated three strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As a result, plaintiff's second IFP application (Dkt. No. 12) is granted.

III. INITIAL SCREENING

Having found that Burroughs meets the financial criteria for commencing this action in forma pauperis, and because he seeks relief from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint must be considered in light of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.

Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – ... (B) the action ... (I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).²

Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint ... is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or ... seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) ; see also Carr v. Dvorin , 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (noting that Section 1915A applies to all actions brought by prisoners against government officials even when plaintiff paid the filing fee).

Additionally, when reviewing a complaint, the Court may also look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of Rule 8"is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable." Hudson v. Artuz , No. 95 CIV. 4768, 1998 WL 832708, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1998) (quoting Powell v. Marine Midland Bank , No. 95-CV-0063 (TJM), 162 F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 1995) (other citations omitted) ).

A court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). While the court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Rule 8"demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. Thus, a pleading that contains only allegations which "are so vague as to fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them" is subject to dismissal. Sheehy v. Brown , 335 F. App'x 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009).

IV. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT

The incidents that form the foundation for the complaint occurred while Burroughs was variously confined at Clinton Correctional Facility ("Clinton C.F."), Upstate Correctional Facility ("Upstate C.F."), and Great Meadow C.F. See Compl., generally .

In a thirty-four page pleading with more than forty pages of exhibits, Burroughs alleges that he was the victim of various constitutional violations following the dramatic and very public escape of David Sweat ("Sweat") and Richard Matt ("Matt") from Clinton C.F. in June 2015.³ See id. Plaintiff names thirty-three defendants. See id. The following facts are set forth as alleged by plaintiff in his complaint.

A. Clinton C.F.

In June 2014, Burroughs was transferred to Clinton C.F. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2. About a month later, plaintiff began working in Tailor Shop 8 at Clinton C.F., where Sweat was also employed. Compl. at 7.

On or about June 6, 2015, during the morning count, corrections officers discovered that Matt and Sweat were not in their cells. Compl. at 9. Defendant Superintendent Steven Racette ("Racette") notified defendants Commissioner Anthony Annucci ("Annucci") and Governor Andrew Cuomo ("Cuomo") and placed the prison on "lockdown". Id. The power to plaintiff's cell was turned off and he did not receive a meal that day. Id. Plaintiff, other inmates, and staff members were questioned about the plan to escape. Id.

Burroughs denied having any information regarding the whereabouts of Matt or Sweat. Compl. at 9. After extensive questioning, however, defendants Joyce Mitchell ("Mitchell") and Gene Palmer ("Palmer") admitted their involvement in the escape and implicated other prison officials. Compl. at 9. Neither Mitchell nor Palmer identified Burroughs as an accomplice. Id. at 10.

On June 17, 2015, while Burroughs was asleep, defendants Sergeant Woods ("Woods"), C.O....