Vidal v. Venettozzi

JOSEPH VIDAL, Plaintiff, v. DONALD E. VENETTOZZI, et al, Defendants.

18-cv-6184 (NSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 19, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Joseph Vidal ("Plaintiff") commenced this action on or about July 6, 2018. On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants Donald E. Venettozzi ("Venettozzi"), Eric Gutwein ("Gutwein"), Wayne Carrol ("Carrol"), and Bryan P. Anspach ("Anspach") (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act ("Section 1983"). (ECF No. 11.)

On June 25, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF No.38.) On September 10, 2020, Plaintiff submitted opposition to Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 47.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, dated January 7, 2019. (ECF No. 11.)

In March 2015, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility ("Green Haven"). (ECF No. 11 at 4.) Defendants served various roles in the disciplinary process at Green Haven. Venettozzi is the Director of Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), Inmate Disciplinary Program and is responsible for the operation of the disciplinary process, including review of guilty disposition of administrative proceedings and training hearing officers. (Id.) Gutwein is a Commissioner Hearing Officer ("CHO"). (Id. at 5.) Carrol is a Recreation Program Leader and was also designated by Lynn Lilly, First Deputy Superintendent, as a Disciplinary Employee Assistant. (Id. at 5-6.) Anspach is a Correction Sergeant at Green Haven and the officer-in-charge at the Facility's Disciplinary Office and performed duties included locating witnesses and obtaining requested information and documents. (Id. at 6.)

On March 6, 2015, Plaintiff experienced difficulties retaining possession of certain legal materials while being transferred from E-block to A-block at Green Haven. (Id. at 7.) During the transfer process, CO Wesley and Co Lampon refused to permit Plaintiff to bring more than four bags of property. (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff indicated that he possessed extra bags of legal material and that he had written the superintendent to obtain permission to possess these materials. (Id.) Plaintiff also requested that CO Lampon contact the security office or call a supervisor because Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") directives contain exceptions that permit possession of additional legal materials. (Id.)

Plaintiff's request was not well received. CO Lampon exited the control gate and advised him in a condescending tone that, "I am not calling no one, put whatever excess property you have in this bag." (Id. at 9.) CO Lampon returned to the control gate and directed the clerk and porters to either lock in Plaintiff or take him up to the second deck. (Id. at 9.) CO Wesley then called to CO Tagliaferri, who was working on the second and third decks and informed her that Plaintiff was going up. (Id. at 10.) CO Lampon exited the control gate and directed Plaintiff to take up any bag he felt he didn't have to reduce in order to comply with property limits. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff grabbed a red commissary bag filled with legal materials and exited the company past CO Wesley, CO Lampon, CO Cocuzza, and CO Chase who were in front of the controlgate. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff ascended the stairs and handed his bag to Espinal, another incarcerated individual. (Id. at 10.) CO Tagliaferri was at the second deck control gate. (Id. at 10.)

After Plaintiff descended the stairs, and returned to the control gate, CO Lampon "got physical" with Plaintiff and placed him in hand mechanical restraints. (Id. at 10-11.) A response team was summoned and, when Sergeant James Carter inquired what happened, CO Wesley stated "he didn't want to comply with the property limit." (Id. at 11.) CO Lampon and CO Wesley then accused Plaintiff of assaulting them. (Id. at 11.)

On March 8, 2015, Plaintiff received two inmate misbehavior reports ("IMR"s) relating to the aforementioned events of March 6, 2015. The first IMR, authored by CO Lampon, charged Plaintiff with violating Departmental Rules 100.11-Assault on Staff, 104.11-Violent Conduct, 106.10-Refusal of a Direct Order, and 104.13-Creating a Disturbance. The second IMR, authored by CO Wesley, charged Plaintiff with violating Department Rules 100.11- Assault on Staff, 104.11- Violent Conduct, and 104.13- Creating a Disturbance. (Id. at 11-12.) CO Wesley and CO endorsed each other's reports. (Id. at 12.)

On March 9, 2015, Defendant Carrol was notified that he was selected to assist Plaintiff with the charges filed against him. (Id. at 12.) Carrol met with Plaintiff and Plaintiff provided a written request for assistance. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff asked Carrol to interview three other additional incarcerated individuals—Candelaria, Margano, and Dunlap—to determine if they would testify on Plaintiff's behalf. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff also asked Carrol to obtain a copy of: (1) the A-block log book, (2) the name of the female officer working the second deck, (3) the A-block 1^st officer's job description, and (4) DOCCS directive 4913. (Id. at 13.)

On March 11, 2015, Defendant Carrol informed Plaintiff that five incarcerated individuals agreed to testify on his behalf. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff inquired as to Espinal's writtenstatement and Carrol responded "he is going to be your witness." (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff asked Carrol whether he had successfully obtained the logbook, job description, and name of the female officer. (Id. at 13-14.) Carrol told him "you can't get them and you could call the officer at the hearing." (Id. at 14.) Carrol provided an assistant form and stated "I know a lot of things are going on in A-block, this is all the disciplinary office allowed me to do, I can't do any more." (Id. at 14.)

Plaintiff alleges that Anspach interfered with Defendant Carrol's role as Plainitff's Employee Assistant and that Anspach refused to assist with requesting departmental and facility records or arrange for documents to be made available at the hearing. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff needed these records to discredit both CO Lampon and CO Wesley. (Id. at 14.)

On March 12, 2015, Defendant Gutwein convened a combined Tier III Superintendent Disciplinary Hearing on the charges against Plaintiff. (Id. at 15.) During the hearing, Plaintiff requested that Gutwein obtain a copy of the A-block job description, a copy of employee manual, and a copy of Departmental Direction 4913 governing property limits. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff also requested that several witnesses be made available to testify including all witnesses who had agreed to testify on his behalf, another incarcerated individual named David Woodrow, and the female officer who was assigned to work the second and third decks. (Id.) The hearing was adjourned so that the witnesses and relevant documents could be located. (Id. at 15-16.)

Thereafter, Gutwein reconvened the hearing and summoned two incarcerated individuals, Dulap and Margano, to the facility disciplinary office, where their testimony was given via telephone. (Id. at 16.) Gutwein also summoned officers Lampon, Wesley, Cocuzza, and Chase, as well as Sergeant Carter. (Id. at 16.)

On May 11, 2015, Gutwein reconvened the hearing and denied Plaintiff's request to produce incarcerated individuals Candeliaria and Woodrow and the unidentified female officer as witnesses. (Id. at 17.) Gutwein made no effort to personally interview Candelaria, denied Plaintiff's document requests, indicated that the requested documents were not relevant to the disciplinary hearing. (Id. at 17.) After the hearing, Gutwein found Plaintiff guilty of the charges in the two IMRs, imposed 270 days of restricted confinement in a SHU, rescinded his privileges—including his possession of certain packages, commissary, and access to the inmate telephone—, and recommended a loss of 9 months' Good Time Allowance. (Id. at 17.)

On June 9, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred hundreds of miles away to a facility in upstate New York. (Id. at 18.) At the upstate facility, Plaintiff was deprived of free movement, physical access to the general population recreation—e.g., daily showers, use of the telephone, use of television, social activities, exercise equipment—, regular visits without restrictions, law library access, program and/or job assignments, prison wages, commissary purchases, food packages, and prescribed and over-the-counter medications. (Id. at 18.) Though unclear, Plaintiff also appears to allege that DOCCS delayed or prevented his access to medical treatment and diagnostic procedures including physical therapy and recommended MRI examinations. (Id. at 18.)

On July 1, 2015, Plaintiff appealed Gutwein's decision to Venettozzi. (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff's administrative appeal was denied. (Id. at 19.) On or about October 1, 2015, Plaintiff commenced an Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court, Albany County, to review the May 22, 2016 and July 7, 2015 determinations. (Id. at 19.) Then, on March 2, 2016, Plaintiff's case was transferred to The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department. (Id. at 19.) By memorandum and judgment dated April 20, 2017, that court unanimously found that theHearing Officer erred by denying Plaintiff's request to call a witness and annulled the May 11, 2015 determination. (Id. at 19-20.)

STANDARD OF LAW

I. Judgment on the Pleadings

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). "To survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir.2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp....