Dozier v. Genesee Cnty.

PLUSH DOZIER, Plaintiff, v. GENESEE COUNTY, WILLIAM ZIPFEL, and JIM CONWAY, Defendants.

No. 6:20-CV-6628 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York

January 7, 2022

DECISION AND ORDER

Elizabeth A. Wolford Chief Judge United States District Court

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff, Plush Dozier (“Plaintiff”), a pre-trial detainee previously incarcerated at the Attica Correctional Facility (“Attica”) and the Genesee County Jail, filed this action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C § 1983. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he was wrongfully confined at Attica despite the absence of a conviction of any offense punishable by such imprisonment and while there, was subjected to excessive force and emotional trauma by Attica guards and other inmates.

Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10) filed by defendant Jim Conway (“Conway”) and motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17) filed by defendants Genesee County and William Zipfel (collectively “County Defendants”). The Court issued scheduling orders on both motions (Dkt. 12; Dkt. 18) warning Plaintiff of the consequences of not responding to the motions, but no further submissions were filed. For the following reasons, both motions are granted.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from the County Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts and Plaintiff's complaint. (See Dkt. 17-37; Dkt. 1). Plaintiff failed to submit an Opposing Statement of Material Facts, and therefore the factual statements contained in the County Defendants' statement may be “deemed admitted for purposes of the motion” if they are supported by admissible evidence in the record. See L. R. Civ. P. 56(a)(2); see also N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund v. Express Servs., Inc., 426 F.3d 640, 648-49 (2d Cir. 2005) (“district courts have the authority to institute local rules governing summary judgment submissions” although “[r]eliance on a party's statement of undisputed facts may not be warranted where those facts are unsupported by the record”). The Second Circuit has indicated that a district court should not deem unopposed facts admitted when those facts are unsupported in the record. See Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2001).

Here, each factual assertion within the County Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts is either taken from the complaint or supported by a citation to exhibits sufficient to prove those factual assertions. (See Dkt. 17-37). Accordingly, the Court deems the factual allegations in the County Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); N.Y. State Teamsters, 426 F.3d at 648-49; Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30, 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998); Thurmond v. Bowman, 211 F.Supp.3d 554, 562 (W.D.N.Y. 2016).

Plaintiff was charged with first degree arson and attempted murder in violation of New York Penal Law § 150.20(01) and § 110-123.25(1), respectively, and booked into the Genesee County Jail on June 15, 2018. (Dkt. 17-37 at ¶¶ 2, 3; Dkt. 1 at 5). While held at the Genesee County Jail, plaintiff “repeatedly engaged in dangerous, disruptive and threatening behavior.” (Dkt. 17-37 at ¶ 4). On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff was moved to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) and housed at Attica, a maximum-security prison, pursuant to Corrections Law § 504(2). (Dkt. 17-37 at ¶¶ 5, 6; Dkt. 1 at 5).

Substitute Jail Orders continuing Plaintiff's care by DOCCS were issued on September 24, 2018, and October 29, 2018. (Dkt. 17-37 at ¶¶ 8, 9). On November 23, 2018, Plaintiff commenced a proceeding pursuant to New York C.P.L.R. Article 78 seeking to contest his transfer from the Genesee County Jail to Attica. (Id. at ¶ 10). On January 2, 2019, a written Memorandum and Judgment was issued that found Plaintiff's transfer to Attica “in accordance with Corrections Law § 504 and the applicable regulations, ” and that Plaintiff “had not shown that the Commission of Corrections exceeded its authority or abused its discretion” in transferring Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 14). Substitute Jail Orders continuing Plaintiff's care by DOCCS were issued on November 26, 2018, January 2, 2019, January 24, 2019, March 1, 2019, and April 1, 2019. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 15, 16, 17, 18).

On May 3, 2019, an Order for Commitment was entered, finding that Plaintiff lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or assist in his own defense. (Id. at ¶ 19). An additional Substitute Jail Order was issued on May 8, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 20). On May 15, 2019 Plaintiff was transferred from Attica to the Central New York Psychiatric Center and on May 17, 2019, the New York State Commission of Corrections revoked the Substitute Jail Orders previously issued. (Id. at ¶¶ 21, 22).

Two claims in Plaintiff's complaint remain. The first is for Plaintiff's unlawful imprisonment at Attica, and the second is a failure to protect claim. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he filed a grievance as to both claims but did not appeal either grievance. (Dkt. 1 at 5-6).

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on August 21, 2020, accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 1; Dkt. 2). On April 19, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for in forma pauperis, and granted him leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days from the date of the Order. (Dkt. 5). The Court directed the Clerk of Court to cause the United States Marshals Service to serve the County Defendants and Conway with Plaintiff's complaint if Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. (Id.).

On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his amended complaint. (Dkt. 8). Notwithstanding the motion's untimeliness, the Court granted the motion and permitted Plaintiff an extension through July 29, 2021, to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 9). No. amended complaint was filed. Conway filed the instant motion to dismiss on July 20, 2021. (Dkt. 10). No. opposition was filed to Conway's motion. On October 19, 2021, the County Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 17). No. opposition was filed to the County Defendants' motion.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards

A. Motion to Dismiss

“In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint.” DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010). A court should consider the motion by “accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trs. of Upstate N.Y. Eng'rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt., 843 F.3d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 2016). To withstand dismissal, a plaintiff must set forth “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 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.” Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 589 F.3d 542, 546 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations and citations omitted). “To state a plausible claim, the complaint's ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'” Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214, 218 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. At 555).

While the Court is “obliged to construe [pro se] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations, ” McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), even pleadings submitted pro se must satisfy the plausibility standard set forth in Iqbal and Twombly, see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Even after Twombly, though, we remain obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally.”). “In deciding an unopposed motion to dismiss, a court is to assume the truth of a pleading's factual allegations and test only its legal sufficiency. . . . Thus, although a party is of course to be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to an opponent's motion, the sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law that the court is capable of determining based on its own reading of the pleading and knowledge of the law.” Bey v. Nugent, No. 18-CIV-7878 (PGG)(RWL), 2020 WL 6530917, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-CIV-7878 (PGG)(RWL), 2020 WL 4731419 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2020) (quotation omitted).

B. Summary Judgment Standard

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should be granted if the moving party establishes “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The Court should grant summary judgment if, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the Court finds that no rational jury could find in favor of that party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)).

“The moving party bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. . . .”...