Amaker v. Fischer et al
Filing
37
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER denying 31 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr on 7/25/2016. (KER)(Mailed to Plaintiff)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANTHONY D. AMAKER, 89-T-2815,
Plaintiff,
13-CV-250A(Sr)
v.
BRIAN S. FISCHER, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to
have the undersigned conduct all further proceedings in this case, including entry of
final judgment. Dkt. #12.
Currently before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. #20), and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #31. For the following
reasons, defendants’ motion is granted and plaintiff’s motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2012, plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order preventing defendants from altering their policy regarding
the breaking of the fast during the Ramadan. 10-CV-977 at Dkt. #36. Specifically,
plaintiff sought to enjoin defendants from preventing plaintiff, and other Nation of Islam
members, from using personal bowls and cups with lids to take food back to their cells
for consumption from sun down to sun up during Ramadan. 10-CV-977 at Dkt. #38.
Defendants responded substantively to the motion, but also argued that it
was improper for plaintiff to seek injunctive relief regarding conditions that were not
related to the issues set forth in the complaint from which the injunctive relief was
requested. 10-CV-977 at Dkt. #41, p.6. The Court agreed and advised plaintiff that if
he wished to challenge the alteration in policy regarding Ramadan or allege that he was
prevented from properly observing Ramadan, he should commence a new lawsuit
against those individuals personally involved in the alteration and implementation of the
Ramadan policy. 10-CV-977 at Dkt. ##57 & 58.
On March 7, 2013, plaintiff commenced this action, pro se, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), against representatives of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS’”), and the Attica
Correctional Facility (”Attica”). Dkt. #1. Plaintiff complains that defendants: (1)
subjected him to unnecessary force upon his return from the Elmira Correctional Facility
on May 10, 2012; (2) imposed a substantial burden upon his right to religious practice
by altering the policy regarding the amount of food inmates could take back to their cell
during Ramadan in July of 2012; (3) failed to provide plaintiff with a Ramadan meal
while he was in transit between Attica and the Elmira Correctional Facility (“Elmira”), in
August of 2012; (4) refused to allow his participation in Eid al-Fitr in September of
-2-
2012; (5) conducted improper and retaliatory cell searches during January and
February of 2013; (6) excluded him from the 2013 celebration of Saviours’ Day because
he refused to complete a Request for Religious Meals or Cold Alternative Diet
Acknowledgment and Consent Form to confirm his participation in religious celebrations
involving special meals; (7) prevented him from purchasing food from outside sources
which are in accordance with Nation of Islam teachings; and (8) imposed an
unconstitutional tax upon Nation of Islam and Sunni fundraising. Dkt. #1.
procedural grounds. 10-CV-977 at Dkt. #58.
Joseph Chisholm, the IGP Supervisor at Attica, declares that a review of
grievances filed with the Inmate Grievance Review Committee (“IGRC”), during the time
frame of the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint reveals three grievances: (1) A-5926612, filed on February 1, 2012, challenges the confiscation of legal mail received from
plaintiff’s home address; (2) A-59342-12, filed on February 17, 2012, complains that
plaintiff did not receive a call-out for Nation Of Islam service on that date; and (3) A60773-12, filed on February 26, 2013, objects to the requirement that plaintiff sign the
Request for Religious Meals or Cold Alternative Diet Acknowledgment and Consent
Form. Dkt. #20-7, ¶¶ 7-10. IGP Supervisor Chisholm also submitted a print out of
approximately 250 grievances which plaintiff appealed to CORC during his
incarceration with NYSDOCCS. Dkt. #20-7, ¶ 11 & pp.46-55.
-3-
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “In reaching this determination, the
court must assess whether there are any material factual issues to be tried while
resolving ambiguities and drawing reasonable inferences against the moving party, and
must give extra latitude to a pro se plaintiff.” Thomas v. Irvin, 981 F. Supp. 794, 798
(W.D.N.Y. 1997) (internal citations omitted).
A fact is "material" only if it has some effect on the outcome of the suit.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see Catanzaro v. Weiden,
140 F.3d 91, 93 (2d Cir. 1998). A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine "if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; see Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,
502 U.S. 849 (1991).
Once the moving party has met its burden of ?demonstrating the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must come forward with
enough evidence to support a jury verdict in its favor, and the motion will not be
defeated merely upon a
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?