Haslinger v. Westchester County et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). filed by Corrections Officer Keyona Mays, Westchester County, Commissioner Joseph K. Spano, Deputy Commissioner Leandro D iaz. Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss the first claim for relief is granted as to all defendants. Defendants' motion to dismiss the second cl aim for relief against the County is Denied. The County shall file an answer to Plaintiff's complaint within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion (Doc. 19). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 4/29/2020) (ks)

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

7 8

WESTCHESTER COUNTY,

05619 (PMH)

,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X

“

”,

(“C.O. Mays”)
(“Dep. Comm. Diaz”)
(“Comm. Spano”)
“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth
.

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.

Plaintiff’s complaint

1

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 16

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and

. The facts recited below are taken from Plaintiff’s
. 9, “

”).

(“WCDOC”) at Valhalla

11–

.

d an “ongoing issue” with Dennis Rooney (“Mr. Rooney”)

Rooney was “likely headed” to WCDOC.
would
.

,
“[a]t first sight of

laintiff,” Mr. Rooney attacked

¶ 21. Plaintiff’s grievance
22–23. When Plaintiff’s appeal was denied, Assistant Warden

2

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 16

(“Asst. Warden Delgrosso”)

stated that “[t]he Westchester County

presently incarcerated in our facility.”

Asst. Warden Delgrosso’s
County “fail[ed] to have a policy in place concerning
rtment’s custody” and that the failure to adopt

such a policy “was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.”

Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6)
a complaint for “
.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’”

, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face “when the

the misconduct alleged.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “

standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant has acted unlawfully.”

The factual allegations pled “m

to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
“When there are well
to an entitlement to relief.”

,

556 U.S. at 679. Thus, the court must “take all well
reasonable inferences are drawn and viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff[].”
d Cir. 1996). However, the presumption of truth does not extend to “legal

3

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 4 of 16

conclusions, and threadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action.” Harris v. Mills, 572
st provide “more
than labels and conclusions” to show entitlement to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

,

(“

‘at the earliest possible stage in litigation.’”

.

A 12(b)(6) motion based on qualified immunity may be granted if “the facts supporting the defense
appear on the face of the complaint.”
–

718 F.3d 157, 166 (2d Cir.
must accept that “

defeat the immunity defense.”
nna

, 630 App’x at 42 (quoting

436

“(a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively
t his action did not violate such law.”

,

479 F.3d 196, 211 (2d Cir.

4

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 5 of 16

“A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the

would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

Born

If an officer’s belief that her action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively
,” she is shielded from liability by qualified immunity.

,
, 563 U.S. at 743 (“[Q]ualified

immunity ‘gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments
. . . [and] it protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’”
,

,

Spano (collectively “Individual Defendants”)
’s safety
.

Plaintiff’s claims against

(Doc. 21, “Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss” at 14).

on his way to WCDOC.
’s

5

–31.

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 6 of 16

, based on the face of Plaintiff’s
,

’s decision to deny

they “created and maintain

the policies and regulations”

“resulted in plaintiff’s injuries, including but not limited to the ‘keep separate’ policy that was in
effect on the day that plaintiff was attacked by [Mr.] Rooney.”

WCDOC’s

’
.1

Plaintiff’s safety

the “driving force” behind qualified immunity is “a desire to
ensure that ‘insubstantial claims' against government officials [will]
” Pearson
438

–32

Anderson

n.2 (1987)). Thus, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly . . . stressed the

importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.”
,

227
finds

question of a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity

1

pretrial detainee’s failure to protect claim
alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement “
Amendment, rather than the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eight Amendment.”
,
849 F.3d 17, 29 (2d Cir. 2017)
6

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 7 of 16

“

,” it is appropriate for the Court to

aff’d, 675 F. App’x

,

.

’

Plaintiff’s complaint does not include any allegation that
WCDOC’s
pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights
that WCDOC’s keep separate policy was in violation of clearly established

d maintaining WCDOC’s keep separate policy and that it is appropriate to
Shannon
(affirming district court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal on
’

2

the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim

.
Plaintiff’s

2

The Individual Defendants also argue that they were not personally involved in the conduct that led to Plaintiff’s
injuries. Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss at 11–
, the Court does not address Defendants’

7

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 8 of 16

redundant of Plaintiff’s claims ag
(2d Cir. 2012) (“
claim against the governmental entity itself . . . ‘official
another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.”
, 436 U.S. at 691 n.55).

of Plaintiff’s

.

Plaintiff’s

violated Plaintiff’s rights under the
–31.
,

, Plaintiff’s second claim for relief asserting

is the “vehicle
its employees' constitutional violations” and “treat[ing] all claims against the City and County
claims”). Therefore, the first claim for relief brought against the County is dismissed. 3
Plaintiff’s second claim for relief alleges
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and therefore the Court denies
Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to

3

.

In addition to alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety,

Plaintiff’s

There are no facts in Plaintiff’s complaint which
of Plaintiff’s
.
3609, 2019 WL 3066378, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019) (“Failure
he Fourteenth Amendment”).
Plaintiff’s
, not a single sentence in Plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations sounding in equal
—

8

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 9 of 16

,
Plaintiff proves that “action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a
constitutional tort.” 436 U.S.

691.
“(1) an official policy or custom

that (2) causes the plaintiff to be subjected to (3) a denial of a constitutional right.”

demonstrate that “
icers.”
768 F.2d 40, 44 (2d Cir.

so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a ‘custom or usage’ and implies the

insulate the County from municipal liability. Second Circuit precedent makes clear that “municipal
e absence of individual liability.”

, 194

341, 350

,
(“[T]he Second Circuit has
9

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 10 of 16

municipal liability.”

, 268 F.3d 65, 71 (2d Cir. 2001)

may be the case when the Court finds “
actions of the named individual defendants,”

0895, 2012
,
,
, but rather are the result of “the
,”

allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint concerning t

First, Plaintiff’s complaint

33.

34.

–34.

WCDOC’s

, the Court’s analysis does not turn on which
wishes to pursue

,
10

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 11 of 16

Warden Delgrosso during the appeal of his grievance that “

incarcerated in our facility.”

communicated to Plaintiff by Asst. Warden Delgrosso is WCDOC’s official policy or a custom or

“[a]

unconstitutional violation,” Brogdon
200

Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss at 7,

Plaintiff’s

“allegations of fact tending to support” the existence of a policy, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
, 48
F.3d 674, 685 (2d Cir. 1995)

Defendants’ reliance on cases asserting that a p
.

the trial court to state that “the jury could ‘infer,’ from ‘a single, unusually excessive use of force

’”

11

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 12 of 16

,
.

,

laintiff “
related to how inmates with burns were treated.”

Care
two

,
allegedly harmed by WCDOC’s policy.

argue that “Mr. Rooney, not the DOC’s ‘keep separate’ policy, was the cause of Plaintiff’s
injuries,” Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss at 6–7, “[c]ausation

. . . .”

,

–18. Plaintiff further alleges that “[a]t first sight of

12

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 13 of 16

viciously attacked and seriously injured plaintiff.”
WCDOC’s

finds
was a cause of Plaintiff’

p. 2d 527, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“
claim cannot lie.”

523 Fed.

’x 832,

Fourteenth Amendments “[t]o be free from cruel and unusual punishment resulting from deliberate
indifference to his safety.”
“

re constitutionally required to ‘take reasonable measures to guarantee

the safety of the inmates,’ in particular, ‘to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other
prisoners.’”
–
do have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other inmates, “not . . . every

for prison officials responsible for the victim's safety.”

9218, 2006
, 511 U.S. at 834 .
–11.

detainee’s

“

Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eight Amendment.”
, 343 F.3d 35, 49 (2d Cir. 2003 .

13

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 14 of 16

failed to protect the detainee by showing that (1) “
‘under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm;’ and [(2)] the prison
official showed ‘deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.’”

a plaintiff show that his conditions of confinement “pos[ed] an unreasonable risk of serious
damage” to his health
3985, 2019 WL 3287818, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2019) (
plaintiff must show that “he or she was ‘i

risk

harm’”
“acted intentionally to

posed an excessive risk to health or safety.”
35.

that his conditions of confinement posed a substantial risk of serious harm to his safety. Defs.’
–10.
an “ongoing issue” with Mr. Rooney and that Mr. Rooney was “likely headed” to the
¶ 13. Plaintiff further alleges that he informed C.O. Mays that Mr. Rooney “was
known in the Yonkers community as a violent and volatile individual” and that Plai
that prison officials were familiar with Mr. Rooney “due to numerous incidents in which [Mr.
Rooney] attacked staff and inmates while housed at WCDOC during periods prior to plaintiff’s

14

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 15 of 16

arrival.”

–15.

“[a]t first

,
eye socket and causing multiple fractures to plaintiff’s neck in addition to other injuries.”

emergency treatment.”

.

,

6

cials were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 10.
, and, while C.O. Mays noted on Plaintiff’s Medical Assessment Report that

¶ 16. Despite Plaintiff’s identification of Mr.

placed in the same housing unit as Plaintiff and attacked Plaintiff “[a]t first sight” causing serious
8–19.

,d
y’

’
Plaintiff’s

prison officials were not deliberately indifferent because “

15

Case 7:18-cv-05619-PMH Document 27 Filed 04/29/20 Page 16 of 16

defendants had actual knowledge of any specific threat to his safety”).

4

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED
Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second claim for relief against
shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint within fourteen days of the date of

19

29, 2020
____________________________

4

–54 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[T]

ity.”).
16