Huggins v. Schriro et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER for 21 Motion to Dismiss filed by Dora B. Schriro, Carlton Newton, 33 Report and Recommendation. Huggins's objections are OVERRULED. The Report is adopted in its entirety. Huggins's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion docketed at ECF No. 21. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/18/2016) (kko)

UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x
DIRAL HUGGINS,
I

f

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

-against14-cv-06468 (GBD) (JLC)
COMMISSIONER DORA SCHRIRO &
WARDEN CARL TON NEWTON,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------- x

GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge:
On August 12, 2014, Plaintiff Diral Huggins, proceeding prose, commenced this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Complaint, (ECF No. 1).) The case was first assigned to another
judge in this district, and, on November 4, 2014, finding that Huggins's Complaint had failed to
satisfy the standards articulated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judge ordered Huggins
to amend his Complaint within sixty days to include the information necessary to state a claim.
(See Order, (ECF No. 5), at 2, 6-7.) Huggins was then granted two additional extensions, (see

ECF Nos. 7, 9), and on April 9, 2015 he timely filed his Amended Complaint, (see Amended
Complaint, (ECF No. 10)). The case was then reassigned to this Court, and on May 7, 2015,
referred to Magistrate Judge Cott. (Order of Reference to a Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 14).)
In his Complaint, Huggins alleged that Defendants Dora Schriro, Commissioner of New
York City's Department of Correction, and Carlton Newton, Warden of the Anna M. Kross Center
("AMKC"), violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. Specifically, Huggins alleged his rights were violated because:

( 1) the sneakers issued by the correctional facility were too thin and
slippery, and this prevented him from participating in outdoor
recreation during winter months; (2) during the same time period,
he was consistently served "cold or lukewarm" food; (3) the
condition of his cell did not meet heating requirements and he was
deprived of sufficient blankets; (4) such conditions-lack of
exercise and exposure to cold-exacerbated his asthma and caused
his health to decline generally; (5) visitation with his family was
limited; ( 6) his access to the law library was restricted; and (7) his
usage of the telephone was limited.
(Report & Recommendation ("Report"), (ECF No. 33), at 2-3.) 1
On July 21, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.
R. Civ. P., arguing that Huggins (1) failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, (2) failed to sufficiently plead defendants' personal
involvement in the purported violations of his constitutional rights, and (3) failed to state a cause
of action. (Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint, (ECF No. 22), at 10.) Huggins opposed this motion on September 29, 2015, (Plaintiffs
Reply Memoranda [sic] of Law ("Huggins Reply"), (ECF No. 29)), and the Defendants replied on
October 8, 2015, (Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 31) at 1).
On November 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge Cott issued a Report and Recommendation
addressing the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

(Report at 1, 22.)

The Report rejected the

Defendants' argument that the record demonstrated that Huggins had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. (Id. at 9.) Nevertheless, it recommended that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss be granted because: (1) Huggins had not pleaded either Defendants' personal involvement
in the purported constitutional violations, an element that must be pleaded and eventually proven

1

The Court has reviewed Huggins's filings and has determined that the Report accurately summarized
Huggins' s allegations.

2

to succeed on a Section 1983 claim against individual defendants, 2 (id. at 9-11 ); and (2) neither
Huggins's allegations regarding the conditions of his confinement nor those pertaining to his law
library and telephone usage rose to the level of constitutional violations, (id. at 12-21 ). Finally,
acknowledging that courts typically grant pro se plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their
complaints to replead factually insufficient claims, the Report concluded that granting Huggins the
right to again amend his Complaint was not warranted given that he had already formally amended
once, and because the court had liberally construed the brief Huggins had filed in opposition to the
Defendants' motion to dismiss so that it effectively amounted to another pleading. (Id. at 21-22.)
Based on these circumstances, the court concluded that any further amendment would be futile,
and recommended that Huggins's action be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 21-22.)
The Report notified the parties that failure to file an objection within fourteen days would
result in a waiver of objections and would preclude appellate review. (Id. at 23.) Huggins timely
filed objections to the Report, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3
("Plaintiff's Response to Defendants [sic] Report And/Or Recommendation Motion To Dismiss,
Amended Complaint ("Objections"), (ECF No. 36).)

2

Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 4 70, 484 (2d Cir. 2006); see Liner v. Fischer, 2013 WL 3168660, at *7
(S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2013) ("[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.").
3

Huggins was served with a copy of the Report on November 23, 2015. (See attachment to this
Memorandum Decision and Order ("Attachment") at 1); Letter, (ECF No. 36), at 15.)) On November 30,
2015, Huggins submitted a letter requesting that the Court extend the time to file his objections to January
5, 2016. (Attachment at 3 .) The Court granted the request. (Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time,
(ECF No. 28)). Huggins submitted his objections to prison authorities on January 4, 2016, one day before
the extension was set to expire. (Objections Affidavit of Service (ECF No. 36 at 14)). On January 5, 2016,
Huggins submitted a letter requesting that the Court accept his objections as timely filed because he had
not received a copy of the order granting his extension request. (Letter at 15.) The Court accepts Huggins's
objections as timely filed and considers them herein.

3

ST AND ARD OF REVIEW
Courts "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or m part, the findings and
recommendations" set forth within a magistrate judge's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). Courts must review de nova the portions of a magistrate judge's report to which a
party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Improper objections, such
as those "that are 'merely perfunctory responses, argued in an attempt to engage the district court
in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original [papers], will not suffice to invoke
de nova review."' Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201, 211(S.D.N.Y.2013) (quoting
Vega v. Artuz, 2002 WL 31174466, at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002)) (alteration in Phillips).
Likewise, conclusory or general objections are also reviewed only for clear error. Id. An error is
clear when courts, "upon review of the entire record, [the court is] left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed." Brown v. Cunningham, 2015 WL 3536615, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2015) (citing United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006)).
It is worth noting that Rule 72(b )(2) states that a party may file "specific written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations" of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. (Emphasis
added). The rule limits objections to specific findings and recommendations to effectuate the
increase in judicial efficiency that the statute providing for the assignment of cases to magistrates
was designed to bring about. See McCarthy v. Manson, 554 F. Supp. 1275, 1286 (D. Conn. 1982),
ajfd, 714 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1983). In short, Rule 72 is not meant to provide litigants with another
bite at the apple.
HUGGINS'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED
Huggins appears to object to the Report's finding that he has not adequately alleged that
the Defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations by asserting that
the Defendants were generally aware of the conditions giving rise to his injuries through the
4

grievance procedure and failed to take action. (Objections

at~

23.) Huggins raised this argument

in his initial pleadings. (Huggins Reply at 8.) The Report correctly determined that filing a
grievance is insufficient to establish personal involvement of prison officials in an alleged violation
of a constitutional right under Section 1983. (Report at 9-10.) Accordingly, Huggins's objection
on this ground is overruled.
Huggins newly asserts that the Defendants negligently supervised their employees and
failed to adequately train them, which led to the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights.
(Objections at ~il 4, 8, 15, 29.) Although the Second Circuit has not settled whether a supervisor
may be held individually liable where he exhibits gross negligence for constitutional violations
inflicted by subordinates, see Raspardo v. Carlone, 770 F.3d 97, 116-17 (2d Cir. 2014), Huggins
has not set forth any facts to support his allegation of negligence (let alone gross negligence). Even
if Huggins had set forth sufficient facts to establish the Defendants' personal involvement, those
allegations would have been insufficient to warrant the rejection or modification of any portion of
the Report because it properly determined that Huggins had failed to establish an underlying
cognizable claim.
The remainder of Huggins's objections are not objections at all, but instead allege new
injuries to support his claims that the conditions of his confinement violated his constitutional
rights. For instance, Huggins alleges that he slipped and fell upon stepping out of the shower
because the Defendants had not provided adequate shower mats. (Id.

at~~

12, 5, 13.)

This Court has reviewed the new allegations set forth in Huggins's latest filing to ensure
that the Report's recommendation to dismiss the action with prejudice would not preclude Huggins
from obtaining relief for an arguably meritorious claim asserting the denial or infringement of a
constitutional right. Like the allegations raised in his previous filings, however, none of the

5

allegations raised in his most recent filing rise to the level of an Eight Amendment violation
because they do not establish an "unquestioned and serious [deprivation] of basic human needs or
a denial of the minimal civilized measure oflife's necessities." Williams v. Carbello, 666 F. Supp.
2d 373, 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 4
Huggins's objections are OVERRULED. The Report is adopted in its entirety. Huggins's
Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to close
the motion docketed at ECF No. 21.

Dated: February 18, 2016
New York, New York
\:

SO ORDERED.

i ,•'
,

~

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

In his objections, Huggins also attempted to modify the amount of damages sought from approximately
$1,000,000 to $5,000,000. (Compare Amended Complaint at 5; Plaintiffs Reply Memoranda of Law,
(ECF No. 29), at 7, with Objections at iii! 21, 30, 35.)
6

U 1'--l ·1 T~ D STA TG

b ·1 -SIA-'\ C\ LlJ U e__ \

~U \J 1µ GtZN D-1 ST l2_\ CT e:JF \'-1G:vJ

'-/ct!.. K
''K6G-\J0ST- <cL 6y:·n:=;00>oi-J

To M U; Gtlf6clicr--J ·10 ·nn;
D(:i'.76-J D~15 <1<uorvt!V'l 6'JD~­
l or-J AJD Muno,.__s,

Cnw'\l'-J\-\SS;os-..Ja_. t)a~ 5cl-HZ-~a__o,

1

w IJ.{2_ p(;r-J

f

Cb.a-L-.-Tbt-J NGtJ'TlJ.....J

To'-

"ZfA1vi~s L.

-ro~

lT-+£

c-r>o\

I

CD\11 Ur-J(\E"i) STATES.

1-\uN: ~ICDR...GE ·5 ~ DA~Jt3LS

NA&15TflA"r60uo~,8 ~

.4 s K i'r) 9 lh "'.\- l,S,,. ('_c~,,.+ d ;s re'·,
e,

ct),v) pl ,.,y,.(- \iv' ;,..h
C':J b [ rt. c. f-

(\/\fl.

""'-/ Am vv:l e J

~.. vJ\.--; ch 1 r.tsp € c.\-Fu 1I \

-6 W h ckh vv-1--< d kj'

J:,.,
~L

pre '1u c\' ice,

'S s

Addi-hCV) 1

l

C::u<<\.humor<!: wish

Cv0 .-+- r~ pesmi'ssron

·.\-c d ;[i Jz.,n ,\--\ cj

C:ar A

,6t.,d A

d>LC-.Zf"'lci ts KfLP er+ .D-r'l d
W-.>

-b

r<lcjLJ<Lsf-

-h~1Y') Q'.,~'1 E:x-k.f) f;;\,vf)

J t9 0?> f-ek[

I 'l. sf' tn d

f(7y

-h:, \:J, IL

~~co ror0 ~0 c\ A+tc1n . .

Y\A->'cyh'i'.+:'1 D,r,, \ \-h.;'3~ ins 1 hlft.by rt<>p<icJ-rvJ I~

A0 Ks

( <?'<

~ 'l

Cc.v.+ And d &...,"' ci J-:s
A,..

A e-7:/'y-q, ~ ._, n
~ 'S IU'V .Z...

f>r>

i \))Y-e.. cl'

L~q u I

Ad !l.~VAk

1'r1

cl vJ ~ Ui cq__

As'; s.J..A,.-1 c. e.. t'\!l.c.i:,s sar'-1

Mc\/ S'\,<Q::; C.i tn.\-- I VS p
CX-

(iY) S:

IL

-fo

(3)

(1~) DA'-jS -~ (?\\~ N\'-(

<obf ~c+\ Ctl~

Y \~ {)+; ~ D ,y-A I 1-h.i g31..) s 1

N>d_ re,,pJ~~

ni qvq,s. h Y""

TF>nu:+-r/

W\fu:L~-k>'tZ-0/ V fA-1~~,~ f't.S puA-h; j l<-j prA-'-f S / ~" 0.\~ e_, Cw<.};

3rA-r\}-s .lJ,

ll___.

~ U-t,~ ,~ r~ cp5 LS h ol t:-x hA s \en cP

r:K
J

r

t-G>

\

I~ -~

1

r

,,
-......_l,.. /\ ,,.,.-'<.

1
' _l~ ~-

"-,~f-t:.-:v ~ , · / _/~v•
/'J

II

//k-< ---~ /
Di-~4 \ ti\.X;GlrJsr
~

*

"

'-> -

1><0Bu:W / CoR.JL. ~cili T~(

CL:: CfDm tl5 t-.-. eo-r-r

r~s- s~

fV1~g 1·sWe:., <J~qt..-

st./

Bo>L bl~

/X080w 1 r--10tJ '-k,.fl,\C
()
i-tcn . 1c10?ffit: 3 .

i '

~
DA-1...i 1t;

Ls

Sc10-n-Kirt;.J <L>~sr~-1 c-r ciF N -'/ ·

0

.......

l~~·-c()-S 4,.....,,__ ICJ

~ sc~--h,fi I'!M p.,.J , .0~ & .

b~Pr<'-(5 ~b-l&i-

l302l\)

S-\+1 t~ 0::
V::Y0~sr1

J ~ "/v< y_
c?

CA'-10~ a

l/ D

\1..(A

L

)
) SS -

5

~

\-\-0 S 1\J-s /

d ~t-\ a.r-c \.fi\ cl~ r ~ t.- puu=~ i +1
'
cC

I

~A-h - ~

no~ d~e.,, /1 S t'..n..J~ t\-<I ExA c~ S:~'l..- Co~ 'l
ck lht- f-\k+A-t. ht-d N!o-k c~ c~ N\oficfi'·\ f1L<ivtsi'n9 M &+~i\S ior-j
0v l,1'0>L~ S~nJ1L 1\,\'i <ab\ t-cl1cv'> vp on .
.lj,'L b~JQ.,-J ,pw-~"t:s ~

CJn

~ e,

ptr.I ~ci

b_t_\cw

)) . 'lh CI ru- k. cf= lh t- G\_," ~
Q:_

f\llA9ls,.h-f'k u<Jcl~e..: ITAme..s L (01-r
4m.GGoe_jL B. DA~iG~
un;+ict ~h-s Dis..\-oc~Cw~1SC0~uf\ 'D ls+rt'c+ cf--- rJtu> \f(ft'?500 ~uvl s-t. / ~ oorn - \3(,o
Wfl.w '/0~, N ·'/ ~ ioocn- IS-~\

·2). G-A<i Sutt0)·1Ul~t 'bsc\,

Cei&.p oil-~ C-1'1 ~vns e..\
D k.hrc~.D-n 4--:s L\-44-ofbJ t-'--\

lh t- (,;~ of:- J ~~'Ic~l!_
t cc Ch v<cJ\ 5kl'ltl\J~ ·'/~L, tJ·'-/, \000·7