Case 9:12-cv-01268-MAD-CFH Document 74 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 8
DIANE VAN BUREN, Deputy Commissioner;
HILTON, Superintendent of Programs; CHARLES
KELLY, JR., Superintendent, Marcy Correctional
Facility; DR. FARAGO, Psychiatrist; ANTHONY
DEVITTO, Executive Director of Special Programing;
Chief, OMH, Residential Mental Health Unit; JOSEPH
BELLNIER, Deputy Commissioner of Program Service;
LUCIEN LECHAIRE, Assistant Commissioner; MAUREEN
E. BOLL, Deputy Commissioner and Counsel; E. LINDQUIST,
Assistant Commissioner; KAREN BALLAMY, Director,
Inmate Grievance Program; JEFF MCKOY, Deputy Commissioner;
MAUREEN BOSSCO, Executive Director, Central New York
Psychiatric Center, Office of Mental Health; B. MCARDLE,
Deputy Superintendent of Marcy Correctional Facility; DONALD
SELSKEY, Deputy Commissioner, CAPTAIN HARPER,
98-A- 3967
Five Points Correctional Facility
Caller Box 119
Romulus, New York 14541
Plaintiff pro se
Albany Office
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants
Case 9:12-cv-01268-MAD-CFH Document 74 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 8
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff pro se Vincent Barrow, an inmate in the custody of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), brought this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the First, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment, as well as under Title II of the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),
42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. See
Dkt. No. 50. Defendants, twenty DOCCS employees, have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Dkt. No. 67.
Defendants have also moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Id.
In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated September 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hummel
recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' 12(b)(6) motion and deny
the Defendants' 12(b)(1) motion. See Dkt. No. 70.
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Hummel's
September 25, 2014 Report-Recommendation and Order. See Dkt. No. 73.
The following facts are not in dispute. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was incarcerated at
Marcy Correctional Facility ("Marcy"). Dkt. No. 50 at ¶ 2. During this time, the Residential
Mental Health Unit ("RMHU") at Marcy implemented "The Lewd Conduct Program" for inmates
who engage in lustful and inappropriate behaviors. Dkt. No. 50 at ¶ 25. Inmates subject to the
program are required to wear a control suit, which consists of a neon-green jumpsuit that has its
Case 9:12-cv-01268-MAD-CFH Document 74 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 8
only opening along the back, is laced with a heavy string, and is fastened with a padlock at the
neck. Id. Another component of the program requires that a fiberglass sign displaying the word
"Exposer" be hung above the inmate's cell door at all times. Dkt. No. 50 at ¶¶ 26, 30.
Plaintiff was required to wear the jumpsuit on several occasions following the issuance of
numerous misbehavior reports for lewd conduct. See id. at ¶¶ 29-31. Plaintiff alleges that several
inmates and staff have verbally insulted and ridiculed him for wearing the jumpsuit. See id. at ¶¶
32-33. As a result, Plaintiff has refused to wear the jumpsuit out of his cell and has thus been
unable to attend programs and medical appointments. See id. at ¶ 36. Contrary to Defendants'
contentions that the lewd conduction program has been implemented for security measures,
Plaintiff argues that the program is specifically targeted to humiliate and lower the self esteem of
inmates at Marcy. See id. at ¶¶ 34-35, 43.
Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action on August 13, 2012. See Dkt. No. 1. Upon
leave of court, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint to include a description of new events that
had taken place since the complaint's initial filing. See Dkt. No. 11, 12. On April 1, 2014,
Plaintiff was permitted to submit a Second Amended Complaint for review. See Dkt. No. 50. In
response, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 67. Plaintiff subsequently opposed the
motion. See Dkt. No. 69.
On September 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hummel filed a Report-Recommendation and
Order recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.
See Dkt. No. 70 at 40. Plaintiff filed written objections on October 10, 2014, objecting to
Magistrate Judge Hummel's recommendations in full. See Dkt. No. 73 at 7.
Case 9:12-cv-01268-MAD-CFH Document 74 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 8
Standard of Review
When objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation and order are made, the
district court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If, however a
party files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections or objections which merely recite the same
arguments [that he presented] to the magistrate judge,"the magistrate judge's recommendations
are reviewed for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations and footnote omitted). The court will "ordinarily refuse to
consider argument[s] that could have been, but [were] not, presented to the magistrate judge in
the first instance." Mosley v. Superintendent of Collins Corr. Facility, No. 9:11-CV-1416, 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6985, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015) (citations omitted). Upon review, "the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1. Misapplication of Case Law
Plaintiff contends that the cases cited in Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-
Recommendation and Order "could have been used in favor of Plaintiff" and "should be used in
his favor." Id. Upon careful review, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Hummel applied the
appropriate legal standards, accurately recited the facts as presented by Plaintiff, and correctly
applied the law to those facts.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection regarding the misapplication of case law is rejected.
Case 9:12-cv-01268-MAD-CFH Document 74 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 8
2. Misapplication of Rule 12(b)(6)
Plaintiff further contends that Rule 12(b)(6) "should have been used in his favor" and that
"legal conclusions," in these circumstances, should be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
See Dkt. No. 73 at 1. When a defendant files a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must "accept
all factual allegations as true and draw every reasonable inference from those facts in plaintiff's
favor." La. Wholesale Drug Co. v. Shire LLC, 754 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, "this indulgence does not relieve the
plaintiff from alleging 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id.
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Plaintiff admits that "the complaint is not without error," and that he "did his best to
inform the court" of the alleged violations despite having been denied counsel. See Dkt. No. 73 at
6-7. The Second Circuit has stated, however, that "pro se status does not exempt a party from
compliance with relevant rules of procedure and substantive law." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Upon
review, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Hummel correctly applied Rule 12(b)(6) and
surrounding case law to the facts presented. In his thorough and well-reasoned ReportRecommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Hummel correctly determined that the allegations
in the Second Amended Complaint were insufficient to plausibly suggest the personal
involvement of Defendants Bossco, Fischer, Harper, McArdle, VanBuren, Holanchuck, Perlman,
LeClaire, Boll, McKoy, Bellamy, and Lindquist. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Hummel also
correctly determined that the Court should grant Defendants' motion as to Plaintiff's First
Amendment claims because some of the speech was not constitutionally protected and, even
when it was, Plaintiff's allegations regarding the alleged retaliation are entirely conclusory.
Case 9:12-cv-01268-MAD-CFH Document 74 Filed 01/30/15 Page 6 of 8
As to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, Magistrate Judge
Hummel correctly determined that the alleged deprivations were not sufficiently serious to
amount to an "'excessive risk' to his safety and health.'" Dkt. No. 70 at 24 (citing Farmer, 511
U.S. at 837; Jabbar v. Fischer, 683 F.3d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 2012)). The report also properly
determined that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege claims of deliberate medical indifference
regarding the denial of treatment for his foot arches and exhibitionism.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's remaining claims and finds them to be without merit;
and, therefore, Magistrate Judge Hummel's September 25, 2014 Report-Recommendation and
Order is adopted in its entirety.
3. Deliberate Indifference
Lastly, Plaintiff reiterates his concerns regarding the denial of necessary medical and
mental health care. Dkt. No. 73 at 5. In this respect, the Court wholly agrees with Magistrate
Judge Hummel's analysis governing Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for medical indifference
related solely to the denial of treatment for depression. See Dkt. No. 70 at 29. In order to have a
valid claim under the Eighth Amendment for cruel and unusual punishment arising out of a claim
for medical indifference, a plaintiff must show "that his medical condition is objectively a serious
one" and that "[each] defendant acted with deliberate indifference to [the plaintiff's] medical
needs." Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). A finding of
deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff "to prove that the prison official knew of and
disregarded the prisoner's serious medical needs." Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 702 (2d
Cir. 1998).
Case 9:12-cv-01268-MAD-CFH Document 74 Filed 01/30/15 Page 7 of 8
Plaintiff states that at the time he was admitted to RMHU he was diagnosed with "Major
Depression Disorder." Dkt. No. 50 at ¶ 46. The Court is mindful that depression, in some
circumstances, has been objectively deemed a serious medical need. See Zimmerman v. Burge,
No. 06-CV-0176, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88344, *34-35 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2009) (finding that
depression is a "sufficiently serious" medical condition when it is not self-diagnosed). In light of
these facts, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has met its burden under the first prong.
In or around May 2011, Plaintiff states that Defendant Farago stopped providing Plaintiff
with depression medication and was instead "pretending" to treat him. Dkt. No. 50 at ¶¶ 47-48.
Plaintiff had been taking this medication to treat his depression for over fifteen years. Dkt. No.
50 at ¶ 47. In his objections, Plaintiff attempts to substantiate his need for the medication by
alleging "many 'crisis' situations,'" including two "attempted suicides" and a single occasion of
hospitalization. Dkt. No. 73 at 4. Plaintiff does not, however, provide any specific dates or
documentation regarding these events. Nevertheless, the Court agrees that "a complete . . .
cessation of medication that [Plaintiff] had been taking for fifteen years could pose a risk of
serious harm to his mental well-being." Dkt. No. 70 at 29 (citing Brock, 315 F.3d at 162-63).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Hummel correctly determined that the
Court should deny Defendants' motion to dismiss as to this claim.
After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and the
applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the September 25, 2014 Report-Recommendation and Order by Magistrate
Judge Hummel is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein; and the Court further
Case 9:12-cv-01268-MAD-CFH Document 74 Filed 01/30/15 Page 8 of 8
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's following claims are DISMISSED; (1) all First Amendment
claims; (2) all Eighth Amendment claims insofar as they allege inadequate prison conditions,
inadequate treatment, and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's exhibitionism and foot condition;
(3) all Fourteenth Amendment claims; (4) the ADA claim; and (5) the RA claim; and the Court
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's
Eighth Amendment claim insofar as it alleges deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's depression; and
the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision
and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
Dated: January 30, 2015
Albany, New York