Reeder v. Uhler et al

Filing 46

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 29 ) is DENIED. ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 29 ) is DENIED as unnecessary in light of the current amended pleading deadline. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 3/8/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RASZELL REEDER,
Plaintiff,
9:15-CV-1078
(MAD/TWD)

v.

DSS BELL, et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

RASZELL REEDER
94-A-6388
Plaintiff, pro se
Upstate Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Malone, NY 12953
MAE A. D'AGOSTINO
United States District Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Raszell Reeder commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. After he commenced the action, plaintiff filed two
motions requesting mandatory injunctive relief in the form of an order directing that his
movements out of his cell be videotaped at all times. Dkt. Nos. 5, 16. By Decision and Order
filed November 12, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief.
Dkt. No. 17 (the "November 2015 Order").1 Plaintiff thereafter moved for reconsideration of

1

Because plaintiff sought mandatory injunctive relief, he was required to make a "clear" or "substantial"
showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. See Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban
Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 33-34 (2d Cir. 1995). The Court found that plaintiff failed to submit proof or
evidence which met the required standard.

the November 2015 Order, which was denied. Dkt. Nos. 19, 20. Plaintiff filed a second
motion for reconsideration of the November 2015 Order and another motion for preliminary
injunctive relief. Dkt. Nos. 22, and 23, respectively. Those motions were also denied. Dkt.
No. 27.
Presently before the Court is another motion requesting preliminary injunctive relief.
Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff again alleges that he was assaulted by staff at Upstate Correctional
Facility on April 8, 2015, October 31, 2015, and November 2, 2015, and fears he will be
assaulted again. Dkt. No. 29. Similar to his earlier motions for preliminary injunctive relief
(see Dkt. Nos. 5, 16, 23), plaintiff requests a Court order directing that all of his out-of-cell
movements be videotaped. Dkt. No. 29 at 1 (claiming that the assaults constitute "excessive
and malicious acts" and "only video as evidence is the help needed"). Defendants oppose
the motion. Dkt. No. 42.
The standard for preliminary injunctive relief was set forth in the November 2015 Order
and will not be repeated here. See November 2015 Order at 16-17. The Court has reviewed
plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary injunctive relief in conjunction with defendants'
response and this Court's prior orders, and has afforded plaintiff due deference in light of his
pro se status. Having done so, the Court denies plaintiff's most recent request for preliminary
injunctive relief for the same reasons set forth in this Court's prior Orders filed on November
12, 2015, November 20, 2015, and November 30, 2015.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 29) is denied.
Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to amend his complaint. Dkt. No. 29 at 1.
This request as denied as unnecessary because a Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and
Scheduling Order issued on February 16, 2016, and set a June 20, 2016 deadline for the
2

amendment of pleadings. Dkt. No. 43 at 4.
III.

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 29) is

DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to amend his complaint (Dkt.
No. 29) is DENIED as unnecessary in light of the current amended pleading deadline; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 8, 2016
Albany, NY

3