Freeman v. Rochester Psychiatric Center et al

Filing 29

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER denying 24 Motion ; granting 23 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on December 2, 2013. (MES)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
DWAYNE FREEMAN
Plaintiff,
v.

12-CV-6045
DECISION AND ORDER

ROCHESTER PSYCHIATRIC CENTER,
BARBARA MACMULLEN, CHRIS KIRISITS,
SANDRA LUCAS, CYNTHIA CROWELL,
CHRISTINE HALLY, MICHAEL ZUBER,
Defendants,
________________________________________
Plaintiff, Dwayne Freeman (“Freeman”), proceeding pro se,
brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), alleging employment
discrimination on the basis of his sex and race. At Plaintiff’s
request, on October 2, 2013, the Clerk of the Court issued an entry
of default as to Chris Kirisits, Sandra Lucas and the Rochester
Psychiatric Center, whose Answer to the Complaint was due Friday
September 27, 2013, but who did not file an Answer until Monday,
September 30, 2013.

(Docket Nos. 17, 20, 22.)

The defendants in

default had filed their Answer in conjunction with the remaining
defendants, whose Answer was due on Monday, September 30, 2013.
The defaulting defendants, the Rochester Psychiatric Center,
Chris Kirisits and Sandra Lucas, now move to vacate the entry of
default. Under Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court can vacate an entry of default for “good cause.” In
determining whether a party has demonstrated good cause, the Court
considers (1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether there is
Page -1-

a meritorious defense to the defaulted claims; and (3) prejudice to
the non-defaulting party. Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com Ltd., 249
F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir.2001). Further, “[s]trong public policy
favors resolving disputes on the merits.” Id.

The Court has

considered the circumstances of this case and finds that the
default was not willful and has not caused prejudice to the
Plaintiff, as the Answer was filed just one day after it was due
and it was filed in conjunction with the remaining defendants,
whose

Answer

was

timely.

As

discussed

below,

the

individual

defendants have raised a meritorious defense to the defaulted
claims. And, although the Rochester Psychiatric Center has not yet
articulated a defense to the claims against it, as noted ,the Court
prefers to resolve disputes on their merits.

Accordingly, the

Court vacates the Clerk’s entry of default against the Rochester
Psychiatric Center, Chris Kirisits and Sandra Lucas.
The individual defendants also move to dismiss this lawsuit
against them. Title VII does not provide for individual liability,
therefore,

the

claims

against

the

individuals

defendants

are

dismissed with prejudice. See Patterson v. County of Oneida, N.Y.,
375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff has also filed a “motion for miscellaneous relief.”
(Docket No. 24.) After reviewing the filing, it appears that
Plaintiff

is

requesting

to

amend

Page -2-

his

complaint

to

assert

a

procedural due process claim.1 “Procedural due process imposes
constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of
“liberty” or “property” interests within the meaning of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.”

Mathews v.

Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). Plaintiff has not identified
any constitutionally protected liberty or property interest of
which he was denied without due process of law.

He appears to

allege that Defendants violated his due process rights by failing
to provide him with documents related to an investigation against
him for sexual harassment after he sent requests pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) to several people at the State
of New York’s Office of Mental Health.

However, Courts in this

Circuit have consistently held that a plaintiff does not have a
property interest in obtaining FOIL documents. See e.g. Blunt v.
Brown, 2010 WL 1945858 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2010)(citing cases); See
also Davis v. Guarino, 52 Fed. Appx. 568 (2d Cir. 2002.)(finding
that the failure to respond to FOIL requests did not amount to a
violation of due process because New York state law provides an
adequate post-deprivation remedy in the form of an Article 78
proceeding).

Accordingly, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff

leave to amend his complaint to include a claim for a violation of
procedural due process would be futile. See Forman v. Davis, 371

1

The Court must view the allegations in the Plaintiff’s filing to raise the strongest
arguments that they suggest. See Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 287 F.3d 138, 146
(2d Cir.2002).
Page -3-

U.S. 178, 182 (1962)(holding that although Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure requires that leave to amend “shall be
freely given when justice so requires,” leave may be denied if it
would be futile).
Therefore, the defaulting defendants’ motion to vacate the
entry of default is granted.

The individual defendants’ motion to

dismiss the claims against them is granted and the complaint is
dismissed with prejudice with respect to Barbara MacMullen, Chris
Kirisits, Sandra Lucas, Cynthia Cromwell, Christine Hally, and
Michael Zuber.

The Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief is

denied.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/ MICHAEL A. TELESCA
HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

Rochester, New York
December 2, 2013

Page -4-