Hamilton v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: (46 in 1:15-cv-04031-KBF) APPLICATION for the Court to Request Counsel, filed by Kareem Hamilton; (22 in 1:15-cv-09458-KBF) MOTION for Summary Judgment in this matter and in related case 15 CV 4031, based o n Plaintiff's current housing assignment, filed by Joseph Ponte; (28 in 1:15-cv-09458-KBF) APPLICATION for the Court to Request Counsel. filed by Kareem Hamilton; (36 in 1:15-cv-04031-KBF) MOTION for Summary Judgment based on Pla intiff's current housing assignment, filed by Joseph Ponte. The Court hereby GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment as unopposed and DENIES plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 36 and 46 and to terminate this action. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 3/9/2017) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (cla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
KAREEM HAMILTON,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
DEPUTY WARDEN; DEPTY WARDEN OF
:
SECURITY; JOSEPH PONTE; C.O. MILLER :
#8331; C.O. DAVIDSON #12593; CAPT.
:
MONROE; and CAPT. SAINT-FLEUR #106,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
KAREEM HAMILTON,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
JOSEPH PONTE; DEPUTY WARDEN HAYES; :
DEPTY WARDEN KELLY; DEPUTY WARDEN :
DUNBAR; DEPUTY WARDEN PRESSLEY;
:
CHIEF CANTY; and ASSISTANT CHIEF
:
:
KENNETH STUKES,
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: March 9, 2017

15-cv-4031 (KBF)

MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

15-cv-9458 (KBF)

Before the Court is defendant Joseph Ponte’s motion for summary judgment
on plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief under the First and Fifth Amendments.
(ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff has also requested appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 46.)
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion as unopposed and
DENIES plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff commenced this action on May 15, 2015. (ECF No. 2.) On October
13, 2016, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for
monetary damages and his claim for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment,
but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s constitutional due process and
religious liberty claims against defendant Ponte for injunctive relief related to
plaintiff’s Enhanced Supervision Housing (“ESH”) assignment. Hamilton v. Deputy
Warden, No. 15-cv-4031, 2016 WL 6068196 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016). In its Opinion
& Order, the Court directed defendant Ponte to move for summary judgment on
these remaining claims if plaintiff “[were] no longer in ESH.” Id. at *10.
Defendant so moved on November 18, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) The Court
provided plaintiff thirty days to oppose. (ECF No. 42.) After the deadline for
plaintiff’s opposition passed, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension
by another month, to January 23, 2017. (ECF No. 44.) The Court subsequently
granted plaintiff’s second request for an extension, providing him until February 27,
2017, to oppose. (ECF No. 45.)
As of March 9, 2017, plaintiff has neither opposed the motion nor requested a
third extension. Instead of opposing defendant’s motion, on February 27, 2017,
plaintiff requested appointment of counsel. The Court cannot construe this filing as
an opposition to defendant’s motion under even the most charitable reading. See
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (“It is well
established that the submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and
interpreted ‘to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’” (quoting Pabon v.
Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006)) (emphasis in original)). Because there is
no dispute of defendant’s factual allegations that plaintiff (1) has been returned to

general population from ESH and (2) has access to Muslim religious services, the
Court concludes that plaintiff’s remaining claims for injunctive relief are moot and,
therefore, GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (See Defendant’s
Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 3-5, ECF No. 37.)
Plaintiff’s letter at ECF No. 46 requests appointment of counsel to pursue
claims that the Court did not find cognizable in its October 13, 2016, Opinion
because plaintiff had raised them for the first time in his opposition to defendants’
motion to dismiss. See Hamilton, 2016 WL 6068196 at *3 n.3. These claims are
unrelated to the claims before the Court on this motion. Plaintiff’s request for
counsel is therefore DENIED. Should plaintiff file a separate action with these
claims, a request for appointment of counsel could be filed in such an action.
The Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment as
unopposed and DENIES plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 36 and
46 and to terminate this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
March 9, 2017

_________________________________
KATHERINE B. FORREST
United States District Judge
cc:
Kareem Hamilton
#16A4861
Downstate C.F.
Box F
Red Schoolhouse Rd.
Fishkill, NY 12524