Negron v. United States

STEVEN NEGRON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CHRISTOPHER ENTZEL, and NICOLE GULLIVER, Defendants.

19-cv-05442 (PMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 21, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Steven Negron ("Plaintiff"), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action on June 10, 2019 against Defendants United States of America (the "United States"), Chirstopher Entzel ("Entzel"), and Nicole Gulliver ("Gulliver" and collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

By motion dated January 10, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 19; Doc. 20, "Defs. Br."). Plaintiff did not file any opposition to Defendants' motion.¹

For the reasons set forth below the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

The facts, as recited below, are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 1, "Compl."). At the time of the alleged misconduct, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute, Otisville ("FCI Otisville") in New York, but he was subsequently transferred to the Allenwood Low Federal Correctional Institution ("Allenwood LFCI") in Pennsylvania.

On a date Plaintiff cannot recall, Entzel allegedly took Plaintiff's prescription eyeglasses and refused to return them. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22). Plaintiff asserts that he, his family, and his attorney contacted the prison to try and get the glasses returned. (Id. ¶ 24). After Plaintiff complained to the warden, the glasses were returned. (Id. ¶ 23). Plaintiff allegedly notified several staff members at FCI Otisville, as well as the Bureau of Prisons Office of Internal Affairs and the "Central Office in Washington" that Entzel was "trying to transfer him in retaliation for complaining about the glasses." (Id. ¶ 24). Plaintiff also allegedly reported Entzel's misconduct to Entzel, the "Administrative Remedy Coordinator" who is responsible for responding to and docketinggrievances, but Entzel "improperly rejected" and "delayed responding" to the grievances. (Id. ¶ 26). Entzel allegedly told Plaintiff that he was "going to pay for filing grievances" and thereafter retaliated against Plaintiff "by having Gulliver arbitrarily and capriciously increase [Plaintiff's] custody points [] to justify [Plaintiff's] transfer to another institution." (Id. ¶ 27).

Plaintiff asserts that on September 27, 2018 at 1:30 a.m., he "was suddenly awoken in the middle of the night" and sent to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. (Id. ¶ 30). Gulliver was allegedly responsible for preparing the "Form 409" which is submitted when an inmate is transferred to a new institution. (Id. ¶ 31). Plaintiff claims the Form 409 included "misleading and unwarranted information" and that the transfer of Plaintiff to a new institution was "a direct result of the racial profiling of Plaintiff's hispanic jew status and complaints about Entzel." (Id.). Entzel and Gulliver, who are "white," allegedly "made certain racial [epithets]" to Plaintiff, who is an "Orthodox Jew" and "Entzel and Gulliver told plaintiff that he should not have written him up and complained to the warden." (Id. ¶ 25). Plaintiff avers that his transfer "was the direct result of the filing of prison grievances against Entzel and [Plaintiff's] hispanic jew status." (Id. ¶ 33). Plaintiff asserts that other inmates "with more severe offenses or prohibited acts" were not transferred and that the "only difference between those inmates and Plaintiff was that none of them filed complaints against the Camp Administrator Entzel." (Id. ¶ 28). Plaintiff provides names and identification numbers for six inmates, allegedly all white, who were punished but not transferred. (Id. ¶ 29). Plaintiff self identifies as an "Orthodox Jew," "spanish Jewish," and/or a "hispanic jew." (Id. ¶¶ 25, 29, 31).

Plaintiff sought an investigation related to his transfer, but he claims that none has been conducted. (Id.¶ 32). Plaintiff asserts that he was told by staff at FCI Otisville that "they, Gulliver and Entzel got it out for you." (Id.).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

I. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(1) requires dismissal of an action 'when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.'" Schwartz v. Hitrons Sols., Inc., 397 F. Supp. 3d 357, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)). "The party invoking the Court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction exists." Hettler v. Entergy Enters., Inc., 15 F. Supp. 3d 447, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2009)). When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) at the pleadings stage, the Court "must accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Id. (quoting Conyers, 558 F.3d at 143); see also Doe v. Trump Corp., 385 F. Supp. 3d 265, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). "Determining the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry[,] and a claim is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Feldheim v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc., 257 F. Supp. 3d 361, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008)).

When "the defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) . . . as well as on other grounds, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first since if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the accompanying defenses and objections become moot and do not need to be determined." Saint-Amour v. Richmond Org., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 3d 277, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting United States v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Hous., Pres. & Dev., No. 09-CV-6547, 2012 WL 4017338, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012)).

II. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion enables a court to consider dismissing a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face "when the ple[d] factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully." Id. The factual allegations pled "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

"When there are well-ple[d] factual allegations [in the complaint], a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Thus, the court must "take all well-ple[d] factual allegations as true, and all reasonable inferences are drawn and viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff." Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996). However, the presumption of truth does not extend to "legal conclusions, and threadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of actions." Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662). Therefore, a plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions" to show entitlement to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

A complaint submitted by a pro se plaintiff, "however inartfully ple[d], must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because pro se plaintiffs are often unfamiliar with the formalities of pleadingrequirements, courts must apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing the complaint of an individual represented by counsel. Smith v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 218 F. Supp. 2d 357 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). While "[p]ro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, even following Twombly and Iqbal . . . dismissal of a pro se complaint is nevertheless appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet minimum pleading requirements." Thomas v. Westchester Cty., No. 12-CV-6718, 2013 WL 3357171, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2013) (internal citations omitted); see also Chavis v. Cappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) ("Even in a pro se case, [] 'although a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint, that tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions, and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.'" (quoting Harris, 572 F.3d at 72)). Therefore, while the Court is "obligated to draw the most favorable inferences that [a plaintiff's] complaint supports, [it] cannot invent factual allegations that [the plaintiff] has not pled." Chavis, 618 F.3d at 170.

The Court also has a duty to interpret the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)). Where, as here, a plaintiff has not filed an opposition brief to the ...