Tafari v. Baker et al

Filing 14

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration. The claims in the Complaint against Dr. Peter Braselman are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Dr. Peter Braselman as a defendant to this action, and to terminate any pending deadlines as to him. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 9/28/16. A copy of this Order was sent by U.S. Mail to the pro se plaintiff by Chambers staff on this date. (AFB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

INJAH UNIQUE TAFARI, 89A4807,
a/k/a RICHARD ORLANDO FAUST,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
6:16-cv-06472(MAT)

-vCANDICE BAKER, JENNIFER BRINK,
ZEBRA CICCONI-CROZIER,
MAUREEN MACK, GARY TAYLOR,
JILL NORTHROP, PETER BRASELMANN,
GREGORY KELLER, PAUL PICCOLO,
JEFFREY MINNERLY, MICHAEL
KIRKPATRICK, RAYMOND COVENY,
PAUL CHAPPIUS,CARL KOENIGSMANN
and ANTHONY ANNUCCI,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Proceeding pro se, Injah Unique Tafari (“Plaintiff”), an
inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, instituted this action
pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

alleging

that

the

defendants,

employees and representatives of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) denied him adequate
medical care in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2016, the Court issued a screening Order in which
it granted Plaintiff’s motion for poor person status, and dismissed
Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Peter Braselman, unless Plaintiff

-1-

amended his Complaint to include the necessary allegations of
personal involvement.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order Granting In Forma Pauperis Status” (Dkt #4) (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that, contrary to the Court’s Order (Dkt #3),
he

has

sufficiently

alleged

defendant

Dr.

Peter

Braselmann’s

personal involvement under a theory of supervisory liability, and
does not

need

Braselmann

of

unconstitutional

to

amend

having

his Complaint.
actual

procedures

or

Plaintiff

accuses

Dr.

constructive

notice

of

being

implemented

or

of

unconstitutional acts occurring, but failed to take corrective
action. Specifically, Plaintiff states that on April 16, 2015,
Nurse Zebra Cocconi-Crozier interrupted his appointment with Dr.
Braselmann, stating that Plaintiff had been in his appointment long
enough and needed to leave, whereupon a correction officer entered
the examination room and told Plaintiff, “Let’s go. Your time is
up.” See Complaint ¶¶ 8, 11, 33 (duplicate of ¶ 11). Plaintiff
complied and went back to his housing location. Plaintiff contends
that

Nurse

Cocconi-Crozier’s

premature

interruption

of

his

appointment, which was permitted by Dr. Braselmann, resulted in him
not receiving any treatment for his nine severe medical conditions.

-2-

This allegation, however, is belied by the remaining allegations in
the Complaint.
The Court has assumed that Nurse Cocconi-Crozier’s premature
interruption

of

his

appointment

with

Dr.

Braselmann

is

the

purported constitutional violation that Dr. Braselmann should not
have allowed to occur. However, these allegations do not imply,
much less overtly state, a constitutional violation. Nor do they
implicate Dr. Braselmann in any constitutional wrongdoing by any
other defendant. In short, they do not raise a plausible claim that
Dr. Braselmann is liable in a supervisory capacity, or has any
personal involvement

in

the

constitutional

violations alleged

elsewhere in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Dkt #4) is denied. The claims against Dr. Braselman are dismissed
with prejudice, and he will be terminated as a defendant to this
action.
CONCLUSION
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration (Dkt #4) is denied. The claims in the Complaint
against Dr. Peter Braselman are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk
of the Court is directed to terminate Dr. Peter Braselman as a
defendant to this action, and to terminate any pending deadlines as
to him.
SO ORDERED.

-3-

S/ Michael A. Telesca

HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
DATED:

September 28, 2016
Rochester, New York

-4-