Guillory v. Skelly et al
Filing
179
DECISION AND ORDER ACCEPTING in part and VACATING in part Judge Foschio's 171 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING Plaintiff's 172 Objections to the Report and Recommendation; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendant's 106 Motion for Summary Judgment; DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to terminate all Defendants except Defendant Skelly and Defendant Hannah. Signed by William M. Skretny, United States District Judge on 11/2/2015. (MEAL) - CLERK TO FOLLOW UP -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PATRICK GUILLORY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
12-CV-847S(F)
CRAIG SKELLY et al.,
Defendant.
1.
Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 in September 2012. On September 5, 2014, Defendants moved for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint.
This matter was subsequently referred to the
Honorable Leslie G. Foschio, United States Magistrate Judge, to oversee all pre-trial
matters and to hear and file a report and recommendation containing findings of fact,
conclusions of law and a recommended disposition of any dispositive motions pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).
2.
In a Report, Recommendation and Order dated July 14, 2015, Judge Foschio
recommended that Defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), any party may serve and file written objections to a report and
recommendation of a magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) further requires that written objections to a magistrate
judge’s report “shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and
recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for each objection, and shall
be supported by legal authority.” After de novo review of those portions of the report and
recommendation to which proper objections are made, a district court “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Gardin, 451 F. Supp. 2d 504, 506
(W.D.N.Y. 2006). Plaintiff timely filed objections to Judge Foschio’s Report and
Recommendation on July 27, 2015.
3.
Plaintiff first objects to the recommended dismissal of his First Amendment
retaliation claim. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Skelly and Hannah planted contraband
on him during a pat-down on July 6, 2012, resulting in disciplinary action.
These
Defendants were allegedly retaliating against Plaintiff for filing a complaint on July 5, 2012,
regarding non-party C.O. Murphy, who stole Plaintiff’s copy of the Constitution. Plaintiff
argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by relying on Wright v. Goord to conclude that
dismissal of a retaliation claim is warranted where “the only individuals named in an
inmate’s internal complaint pertained to others who were not alleged to have participated
in the event of which the inmate plaintiff complained.” (R&R, Docket No. 171 at 17); see
Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 274 (2d Cir. 2009). To the extent that this statement can
be interpreted as concluding that dismissal is warranted solely on the fact that the alleged
retaliatory act was carried out by a person not named in the grievance or similar protected
activity, such a conclusion would be error. Instead, dismissal was appropriate in Wright
because there was no evidence from which a rational juror could conclude that the
defendants knew of and took retaliatory action due to a plaintiff’s letter that, in addition to
not discussing any named defendant, was written ten weeks prior to the retaliatory act and
sent to a district attorney outside the prison system. Wright, 554 F.3d at 274. Further,
although the timing and wording of Plaintiff’s July 5, 2012 letter, which expressly references
retaliation, raise a credibility issue as argued by Defendants, (Docket No. 112 at 9-11),
2
resolution of that credibility issue is improper on a motion for summary judgment.
Defendants’ motion is therefore denied with respect to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against
Defendant Hannah and Skelly.
4. Plaintiff next objects to Judge Foschio’s conclusion that the evidence supporting
his Eight Amendment excessive force claim was “ ‘too thin’ and thus ‘insufficient with
respect to both the objective and subjective components’ ” of such a claim. (Docket No.
171 at 20 (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d at 269).) However, Plaintiff testified at his
deposition that on July 16, 2012, while escorting Plaintiff back to his cell after a disciplinary
hearing, Defendant Skelly choked Plaintiff from behind while the latter was handcuffed.
Plaintiff further testified that Defendant Hannah punched him in his ear, following which he
was told to dismiss his lawsuits against the state. (Pl’s Dep at 62-68, Docket No. 142
(manual filing) Ex K.) Thus, although the evidence is thin, this is nonetheless a case where
“dismissal of the excessive force claim [i]s inappropriate because there are genuine issues
of material fact concerning what transpired [while] appellant was handcuffed and whether
the guards maliciously used force against him.” Griffin v. Crippen, 193 F.3d 89, 91 (2d Cir.
1999) (malicious use of force to cause harm constitutes a constitutional violation whether
or not a significant injury is evident); see also Pelayo v. Port Auth., 893 F. Supp. 2d 632,
642 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (plaintiff’s testimony alone can support an excessive force claim on
summary judgment) (citing Mickle v. Morin, 297 F.3d 114, 121-22 (2d Cir. 2002)).
Defendants’ motion must therefore be denied with respect to Plaintiff’s excessive force
claim.
5.
This Court has considered the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations to deny
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but grant
3
dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement and Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process claims, to which no specific objections were raised. Finding no
clear error, those portions of the Report and Recommendation are accepted.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation
(Docket No. 171) is ACCEPTED in part and VACATED in part as stated above;
FURTHER, that Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. 172) are GRANTED;
FURTHER, that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 106) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated above;
FURTHER, that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate all Defendants except
Defendant Skelly and Defendant Hannah.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 2, 2015
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
United States District Judge
4
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?