Woodward v. Doe #1 et al

Filing 31

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 28 ) is accepted for filing and is deemed the operative pleading. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall (i) revise the docket to reflect that Gori, Geleta, and Cituk are defend ants in this action; and (ii) revise the docket to reflect that John Does #1, #2, and #3 are no longer defendants in this action. ORDERED that the following claims survive review and require a response: (1) Eighth Amendment excessive force claim ag ainst Gori; (2) Eighth Amendment failure-to-intervene claims against Geleta and Cituk; (3) First Amendment retaliation claim against Gori; and (4) First Amendment religious claim against Gori. ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue summonses and forwar d them, along with copies of the Amended Complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the defendants. ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction (Dkt. No. 25 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 1/24/19. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHAWN WOODWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:18-CV-0083
(DNH/DJS)

JOHN DOE #1, Correctional
Officer; Greene Correctional
Facility, JOHN DOE #2, Correctional
Sergeant; Greene Correctional
Facility, and JOHN DOE #3, Correctional
Officer; Greene Correctional Facility,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

SHAWN WOODWARD
Plaintiff, pro se
00-A-6563
Washington Correctional Facility
Box 180
72 Lock 11 Lane
Comstock, NY 12821
HON. LETITIA JAMES
New York State Attorney General - Albany
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

MELISSA A. LATINO, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Shawn Woodward ("Woodward" or "plaintiff") commenced this action
by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), together with
an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."); Dkt. No. 10 ("IFP

Application").
In the complaint, Woodward set forth claims arising out of his confinement in the
custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
("DOCCS") at Greene Correctional Facility ("Greene C.F."). See generally, Compl.
By Decision and Order filed on February 8, 2018 (the "February Order"), Woodward's
IFP Application was granted. Dkt. No. 4. After reviewing the complaint in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court f ound that plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment excessive force and retaliation claims against John Doe #1 and failure to protect
claims against John Doe #2 and John Doe #3 survived sua sponte review and required a
response.1 See generally, Dkt. No. 4.
Pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d. Cir. 1997) (per curiam), in order to
assist Woodward in identifying the John Doe defendants, the Court requested that the Office
of the Attorney General attempt to ascertain the full names of the John Doe defendants. Dkt.
No. 4 at 12-13. The Attorney General's Office was also requested, to the extent that it was
able to identify either of the John Doe defendants, to provide the addresses where the
defendants might be served.2 Id.
On December 10, 2018, after several motions, appeals, and requests for extensions
of time by both parties, the Attorney General's Office provided Woodward with information
regarding the identities of the John Doe defendants included in the complaint. Dkt. No. 26.

1

The Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amendment religious claims and claims against defendants
Inmate John Doe #4 and Inmate York. Dkt. No. 4 at 6.
2

The Attorney General's Office was advised that it need not undertake to defend or indemnify these
individuals at this juncture. The February Order was intended merely to provide a means by which Plaintiff may
name and properly serve the defendants as instructed by the Second Circuit in Valentin.

2

Presently under consideration is Woodward's amended complaint. Dkt. No. 28 ("Am.
Compl."). Plaintiff also filed a motion for a "permanent injunction." 3 Dkt. No. 25.
II. REVIEW OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
The legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) was discussed at length in the February Order and it
will not be restated in this Decision and Order. See Dkt. No. 4 at 2-4.
Taking into account Woodward's pro se status, the Court construes the allegations in
the amended complaint with the utmost leniency. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
521 (1972) (holding that a pro se litigant's complaint is to be held "to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.").
The facts asserted in the amended complaint are identical to those pleaded in the
original Complaint. Compare Compl. with Am. Compl. On May 12, 2017, Woodward and
three other inmates were transferred to Greene C.F. to attend mediation/settlement
conferences. Am. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff brought his legal work, his Holy Qur'aan, and his
prayer rug with him to Greene C.F. Id.
The three inmates that accompanied Woodward received their property and were
escorted to the A-1 Dorm. Am. Compl. at 4. When plaintiff was called to the Property Room,
defendant Correctional Officer J. Gori ("Gori")4 gave him one pair of underwear, a t-shirt, and
socks. Id. When Plaintiff inquired about his property, Gori used expletives and told plaintiff
to "[p]ut a claim in or sue me." Id. Plaintiff verbally complained to defendant Sergeant

3

The Attorney General's Office responded to the motion and stated that since none of the Defendants
have been served, the Office does not represent any party. Dkt. No. 27.
4

The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Gori for John Doe #1.

3

Geleta ("Geleta")5. Id. In response, Geleta told Gori that Plaintiff was "snitching." Am.
Compl. at 4.
While Woodward was seated on a bench, Gori, without provocation and in the
presence of Geleta, defendant Correctional Officer K. Cituk ("Cituk"),6 and two inmates,
grabbed Plaintiff by the throat, choked him, and punched him on the left side of his head.
Am. Compl. at 4-5. When Plaintiff attempted to defend himself, the inmates restrained
Plaintiff and prevented him from getting off the bench. Id. at 5. Geleta then asked Plaintiff if
he wanted to sue them. Id. Plaintiff responded, "no" and Geleta stated, "[a]fter you go to
court Monday, [ ] [m]ake sure you don't have to come back or you will never leave Greene's
SHU-200." Id. As a result of the attack, Plaintiff sustained pain in his neck and a headache.
Am. Compl. at 5. Plaintiff suffered from a sore neck until May 13, 2017. Id. Plaintiff was
escorted to the A-1 Dorm. Id. at 4-5.
When Woodward arrived at the A-1 Dorm, he asked an officer to sweep an area so
that he could pray. Am. Compl. at 5-6. When the officer refused, Plaintiff asked for an extra
sheet or blanket so that he could pray. Id. at 6. The officers told Plaintiff to abandon his
prayers or use his state issued linen. Id. Because Plaintiff was not provided with a clean
surface to pray, he had to abandon all prayers while confined at Greene C.F. Id.
Woodward seeks monetary damages. Am. Compl. at 7.
A. Previous Claims
As a result of the review of the original Complaint, the Court held that W oodward's

5

The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Geleta for John Doe #2.

6

The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Cituk for John Doe #3.

4

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and retaliation claim against John Doe #1 required
a response. With the Amended Complaint, plaintiff repeats those claims and substitutes Gori
for the unidentified defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds that the excessive force and
retaliation claims against Gori survive sua sponte review and require a response.
As a result of the review of the original complaint, the Court held that Woodward's
Eighth Amendment failure to intervene claims against John Does #2 and #3 also required a
response. With the amended complaint, plaintiff repeats those claims and substitutes Geleta
and Cituk for the unidentified defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds that the failure to
intervene claims against Geleta and Cituk survive sua sponte review and require a response.
B. First Amendment Religious Claims
With the amended complaint, Woodward realleges his First Amendment religious
claims against Gori with additional factual allegations.
The law related to First Amendment religious claims was discussed in the February
Order and will not be restated herein. See Dkt. No. 4 at 7-8. In the February Order, the
Court dismissed the First Amendment claims holding:
Woodward's complaint lacks any facts related to when or, for
how long, plaintiff was deprived of his Holy Qur'aan and/or
prayer rug. The complaint contains vague accusations with
unspecified dates, times, and facts suggesting establishing
how plaintiff was burdened. These allegations, without more,
fail to plausibly suggest that defendant burdened plaintiff's right
to freely practice his religion.
Dkt. No. 4 at 8.
In the amended complaint, Woodward attempts to correct the deficiencies in this
claim. Am. Compl. at 6. Since 2000, plaintiff has been a practicing Muslim. Id. at 5. Plaintiff

5

alleges that the Holy Qur'aan is sacred, akin to the Bible or Torah, and that to "ensure
compliance with Muslim teachings," he was required to read a portion of the Holy Qur'aan
after each of his five daily prayers. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that Gori violated his
First Amendment religious rights when he "intentionally destroyed" plaintiff's Prayer Rug and
Holy Qur'aan leaving him with no means to pray or read. Id. at 6.
At this juncture, Woodward has alleged sufficient facts suggesting that Gori's conduct
constituted a substantial burden on his sincerely held religious beliefs. Accordingly, Gori is
directed to respond to the First Amendment claim.
III. MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Woodward also moves for a permanent injunction preventing DOCCS from
transferring plaintiff to Greene C.F. Dkt. No. 25 at 3.
The standard for a permanent injunction is essentially the same as the standard for a
preliminary injunction, except that the moving party, instead of showing a likelihood of
success on the merits must show actual success on the merits. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of
Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12 (1987) (citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390,
392 (1981)).
Preliminary injunctive relief "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should
not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion."
Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). "The district court has wide discretion in determining
whether to grant a preliminary injunction." Id. at 511.
To succeed on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate

6

irreparable harm and either a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, or
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly
in his favor. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. V. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. ,
598 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2010).
However, when the moving party seeks a "mandatory preliminary injunction that alters
the status quo by commanding a positive act," the burden is even higher. Cacchillo v.
Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401, 405-06 (2d Cir. 2011). "A mandatory preliminary injunction
'should issue only upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief
requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will result from a denial of preliminary
relief.' " Id. (quoting Citigroup, 598 F.3d at 35 n.4).
The alleged violation of a constitutional right generally satisfies a plaintiff’s burden to
demonstrate irreparable harm. Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996). However,
"[i]rreparable harm is injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent
and that cannot be remedied by an award of monetary damages." N.Y. ex rel.
Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 660 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom.
Allergan PLC v. N.Y. ex. rel. Schneiderman, 136 S. Ct. 581, 193 L. Ed. 2d 421 (2015)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Furthermore, "[t]o prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party
must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving
rise to the complaint." Candelaria v. Baker, No. 00-CV-0912, 2006 WL 618576, at *3
(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2006) (citations omitted); see also Allen v. Brown, No. 96-CV-1599
(RSP/GJD), 1998 WL 214418, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1998) (denying request for injunctive

7

relief where allegations in application for such relief were unrelated to claims asserted in the
complaint and thus plaintiff "failed to establish either a likelihood of succeeding on the merits
of his underlying claim, or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of such claim and
a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward" the plaintiff).
"In the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great
caution so as not to immerse the federal judiciary in the management of state prisons."
Fisher v. Goord, 981 F. Supp. 140, 167 (W .D.N.Y. 1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 846-47 (1994)) (other citations omitted).
Here, the injunction sought is mandatory, and thus the Court will use the "clear and
substantial" showing of a likelihood of success standard. Woodward moves for an order
preventing DOCCS from transferring him to Greene C.F. Dkt. No. 25 at 3. Plaintiff alleges
"DOCCS' employees" attempted to transfer him on November 26, 2018, to Greene C.F. Id.
Plaintiff refused and, as a result, was transferred to the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") at
Ulster Correctional Facility ("Ulster C.F."). Id. While he was housed at Ulster C.F. when he
filed the motion, plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Washington Correctional Facility
("Washington C.F."). Dkt. No. 29.
As discussed supra, the remaining defendants are Gori, Geleta, and Cituk. To the
extent that Woodward seeks injunctive relief against entities that are not defendants in this
action, injunctive relief is available against non-parties only under very limited circumstances,
none of which are present here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Doctor's Associates, Inc. v.
Reinert & Duree, P.C., 191 F.3d 297, 302-03 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Regan, 858
F.2d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 1988); see also In re Rationis Enterprises, Inc. of Panama, 261 F.3d

8

264, 270 (2d Cir. 2001) ("A court may not grant a final, or even an interlocutory, injunction
over a party over whom it does not have personal jurisdiction.").
Additionally, an inmate does not have a right to be confined to the prison of his own
choosing. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); see also Alexander v. Deming,
No. 03-CV-0147, 2009 WL 1044561, at *11 (W.D.N.Y. April 16, 2009) (holding that the Court
lacks the authority to order that an inmate be imprisoned in any particular facility).
Therefore, there is no legal basis for this Court to order the relief requested.
Moreover, defendants have not yet answered, and, indeed, have not even been
served. Accordingly, the Court cannot ascertain W oodward likelihood of success or whether
he has otherwise met the standard for issuance of permanent injunctive relief. For the
foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The amended complaint (Dkt. No. 28) is accepted for filing and is deemed the
operative pleading;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall (i) revise the docket to reflect that Gori, Geleta, and
Cituk are defendants in this action; and (ii) revise the docket to reflect that John Does #1, #2,
and #3 are no longer defendants in this action;
3. The following claims survive review and require a response: (1) Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim against Gori; (2) Eighth Amendment failure-to-intervene
claims against Geleta and Cituk; (3) First Amendment retaliation claim against Gori; and

9

(4) First Amendment religious claim against Gori;
4. The Clerk shall issue summonses and forward them, along with copies of the
Amended Complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the defendants;
5. The Clerk shall forward a copy of the summonses and Amended Complaint to the
Attorney General's Office, together with a copy of this Decision and Order;
6. A response to the Amended Complaint be filed by the defendants or their counsel,
as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
7. All pleadings, motions and other documents relating to this action
must bear the case number assigned to this action and be filed with the Clerk of the United
States District Court, Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, 100 S.
Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367;
8. Any paper sent by a party to the Court or the Clerk must be accompanied by a
certificate showing that a true and correct copy of same was served on all opposing
parties or their counsel. Any document received by the Clerk or the Court which does
not include a proper certificate of service will be stricken from the docket;
9. Plaintiff must comply with any requests by the Clerk’s Office for any documents
that are necessary to maintain this action;
10. All parties must comply with Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District of New York in
filing motions;
11. Plaintiff is also required to promptly notify the Clerk’s Office and all parties
or their counsel, in writing, of any change in his address; their failure to do so will
result in the dismissal of his action;

10

12. Plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED; and
13. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on Plaintiff in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2019
Utica, New York.

11