Baker v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision et al
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Plaintiff's second motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 6 ) is DENIED. ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted an additional thirty days from the filing date of the within Decision and Order to comply with the January Order. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/12/18. (served on plaintiff by regular mail)(alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION, et. al.,
Plaintiff, Pro se
Woodbourne Correctional Facility
99 Prison Road
PO Box 1000
Woodbourne, NY 12788
GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is the second motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by
pro se plaintiff Ralph Baker ("Plaintiff"). Dkt. No. 6. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s
motion is denied.
In November 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action with the filing of a Complaint
seeking relief for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights during his confinement in the
custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
("DOCCS"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."), generally. Plaintiff claimed that defendants, DOCCS,
Commissioners of Parole Tina Stanford ("Stanford"), Joseph P. Crangle ("Crangle"), and
Marc Coppola ("Coppola"), and Commissioner of Correctional Services Glenn S. Goord
("Goord"), subjected him to an unlawful Parole Board Hearing in violation of his constitutional
rights and violated his Eighth Amendment rights. See Compl. at 5. In a Decision and Order
filed on January 10, 2018 (the "January Order"), the Court reviewed the sufficiency of the
Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Dkt. No. 5.
Based upon that review, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. See id., generally. In light of his pro se status, Plaintiff was
afforded an opportunity to submit an amended complaint. See id. at 16.
With the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief seeking
an order preventing defendants from using "boilerplate" language in decisions and restraining
defendants from considering Plaintiff's criminal history, including the Presentence
Investigation Report. Dkt. No. 2 at 1; Dkt. No. 2-1 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 2-2 at 1-2. Plaintiff also
sought to prevent defendants from applying Executive Law § 259-i at future Parole Board
Hearings. Id. In the January Order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief.
See Dkt. No. 5 at 13-15.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for injunctive relief.1 Dkt. No. 6.
The law related to preliminary injunctions was discussed in the January Order and will
not be restated herein. See Dkt. No. 6 at 13-14. In the January Order, the Court denied
Plaintiff's first motion for injunctive relief holding:
Construing Plaintiff's motion in the light most favorable to him
as a pro se litigant, the Court finds that he has failed to
substantiate any allegations of irreparable harm with evidence
in admissible form. At this juncture, Plaintiff has failed to assert
any viable cause of action and all allegations in the Complaint
have been dismissed. Moreover, in his motion for injunctive
relief, Plaintiff fails to provide any specific facts establishing the
likelihood of success on the merits or extreme or serious
Dkt. No. 5 at 15.
In his most recent submission, Plaintiff seeks an order barring DOCCS from extending
his sentence beyond his parole date and, further, for an order restraining DOCCS from using
"discretion" in parole decisions and from considering factors contained in the "Parole
Interview Package." See Dkt. No. 6, generally. The injunction sought is mandatory, thus the
court will use the "clear and substantial" showing of a likelihood of success standard.
Plaintiff's current submission suffers from the same infirmities as his prior motion. In
the January Order, the Court found that the Complaint filed by Plaintiff is insufficient and that
an amended complaint must be filed for this action to proceed. To date, Plaintiff has not filed
Plaintiff's motion is filed on behalf of Plaintiff and "similarly situated people, N.Y. Times Article ...
Parole is Broken." See Dkt. No. 6. It is well settled, however, that a class action cannot be maintained by a pro
se litigant as non-attorneys may not represent anyone other than themselves. Miller v. Zerillo, 2007 WL
4898361, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2007) (citing cases and recommending denial of class certification without
prejudice until an attorney makes an appearance); see also Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir.1998);
28 U.S.C. § 1654.
an amended pleading.2 Without a valid complaint, Plaintiff can not possibly establish that his
claim has a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim or sufficiently serious questions
going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party seeking
injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief without
prejudice to file a new motion after Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint and it has been
accepted by Order of this Court. In light of his pro se status, the Court affords Plaintiff an
additional thirty days to comply with the January Order.
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in the January Order, Plaintiff's
second motion for preliminary injunctive relief is denied in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's second motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted an additional thirty days from the filing date of the
within Decision and Order to comply with the January Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on
Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.
February 12, 2018
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge
As an exhibit to the motion, Plaintiff annexed a copy of the original Complaint. Compare Compl.
with Dkt. No. 6-2.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?