Young v. Doe et al

Filing 12

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to obtain the documents set forth above, docket them in accordance with the Western District Order and this Decision and Order, and then return this file to the Court for review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel on 7/26/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail)(alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOHN SHICOBRA YOUNG, a/k/a J. Shicobra
Young,
Plaintiff,
9:16-CV-0660
(FJS/CFH)

v.

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
JOHN SHICOBRA YOUNG,
a/k/a J. Shicobra Young
86-A-2673
Plaintiff pro se
Eastern New York Correctional Facility
Box 338
Napanoch, New York 12458
CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL
United States Magistrate Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is a consolidated civil rights action commenced by pro se
plaintiff John Shicobra Young pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1
By way of background, plaintiff commenced three civil rights actions by filing
complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("Southern District"). See Young v. Doe, No. 1:16-CV-0965 (filed S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2016)
("Young v. Doe"); Young v. Sgt. Andrus, No. 1:16-CV-1554 (filed S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016)
("Young v. Sgt. Andrus"); and Young v. Andrus, No. 1:16-CV-3482 (filed S.D.N.Y. May 10,
1

Plaintiff has one other action pending in this District. Young v. Russo, No. 9:16-CV-0612 (FJS/CFH).

2016) ("Young v. Andrus"). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee for these actions but filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Application") in each. See Young v. Doe, Dkt.
No. 1; Young v. Sgt. Andrus, Dkt. No. 1; and Young v. Andrus, Dkt. No. 1. After reviewing
the complaints, Southern District Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska concluded that venue was
not proper in the Southern District because plaintif f alleged in all three actions that
defendants violated his rights at Wende Correctional Facility ("Wende C.F."") in 2005 and
two of the three actions also alleged due process violations related to disciplinary hearings at
Eastern New York Correctional Facility ("Eastern C.F.") in 2015. See Young v. Doe, Dkt. No.
4; Young v. Sgt. Andrus, Dkt. No. 4; and Young v. Andrus, Dkt. No. 4. Because all three
actions involved wrongdoing which occurred at Wende C.F., which is located in Erie County
within the Western District of New York ("Western District"), Chief Judge Preska transferred
all three actions to the Western District. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Upon transfer to the Western District, Young v. Doe was assigned civil case number
6:16-CV-6099 ("Young I"); Young v. Sgt. Andrus was assigned civil case number 6:16-CV6243 ("Young II"); and Young v. Andrus was assigned civil case number 6:16-CV-6347
("Young III"). Upon review of the complaints in Young I, Young II, and Young III, Western
District Judge David G. Larimer granted plaintiff in forma pauperis status and liberally
construed the complaints as follows:
Plaintiff has named no defendants in the caption of his first
complaint [Young I at Dkt. No. 2] (WDNY16-CV-6099L), but
describes the defendants in the defendant section as Andrus Sgt.
and Adam Sgt. of Wende Correctional Facility and Menard P.T.
Sgt. and Polizzi CHO of Eastern Correctional Facility. He makes
allegations regarding events in 2005 and 2004 at W ende
Correctional Facility in the form allegation sections of the
complaint and then adds additional pages to make allegations as
to his claim of denial of due process during a disciplinary hearing
in December of 2015 while he was at Eastern Correctional
2

Facility. In his second complaint [Young II at Dkt. No. 2]
(WDNY16-CV-6243L), plaintiff names only Sergeant Andrus and
Twelve Corrections Officers, but again makes allegations in the
form complaint related to the 2005 W ende events and again adds
additional pages to allege the denial of due process at the
December 2015 Eastern Correctional Facility disciplinary hearing
or hearings for which he was sentences to 120 and 90 days in
segregated housing. In the third complaint [Young III at Dkt. No. 2]
(WDNY16-CV-6347L), plaintiff again names only Andrus Sgt. and
Twelve Corrections Officers, but alleges no facts regarding that or
any other claim.
See Dkt. No. 10 (the "Western District Order") at 2-3. Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Larimer ordered that "plaintiff's three actions shall be
consolidated into a single action under the case number 16-CV-6099L ["Young I"], and the
complaint in case number 16-CV-6243L ["Young II"] and 16- CV-6347L ["Young III"] shall be
deemed [ ] Supplemental Complaint[s] in 16-CV-6099L ["Young I"]." Western District Order
at 3.2
After consolidating the three actions, Judge Larimer found that the claims related to
events that occurred at Wende C.F. were "subject to dismissal because plaintiff fail[ed] to
allege sufficient facts to state a claim against any defendant," it "appear[ed] that plaintiff has
already litigated or is litigating the [Wende C.F.] claims in the New York State Court of
Claims," and the Wende C.F. claims were "barred on the basis that the three year statute of
limitations." Western District Order at 3-4. Accordingly, all of the claims "related to events in
2004 or 2005 at Wende Correctional Facility" were "dismissed without prejudice" and plaintiff
was advised that, "[s]hould he be able to allege facts that would state a claim that has not
previously been litigated and that is within the statute of limitations[,]" he may file a new

2

When actions involve common questions of law or fact, the Court may consolidate the actions and
"issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay." FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a).

3

action in the Western District of New York with respect to those claims. Western District
Order at 4.
Finally, Judge Larimer concluded that the remaining claims – namely, the allegations
that plaintiff was denied due process at a disciplinary hearing or hearings held at Eastern
C.F. in 2015 – occurred, if at all, in the Northern District of New York ("Northern District") and
therefore those claims were transferred to the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a). Western District Order at 4. Judge Larimer left the "evaluation of the sufficiency of
[the 2015 due process] claims to the Northern District of New York." Id.3 However, as a
result of a clerical error in the Western District, the complaints in Young II and Young III were
not docketed in Young I – the lead case – as supplemental complaints as directed by the
Western District Order.
In light of this, the Clerk of the Northern District is to obtain copies of the complaints in
Young II and Young III. See Young II at Dkt. No. 2 and Young III at Dkt. No. 2. Once copies
of these complaints are obtained, the Clerk shall file the complaint in Young II as the "First
Supplemental Complaint" for this action and the complaint in Young III as the "Second
Supplemental Complaint" for this action. Upon doing so, the Clerk shall return this file to the
Court for further review.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to obtain the documents set forth
above, docket them in accordance with the Western District Order and this Decision and
Order, and then return this file to the Court for review; and it is further

3

The dismissed Western District claims were not transferred to the Northern District as part of this
consolidated action. Id.

4

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on plaintiff in
accordance with Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26, 2016
Albany, New York

5