Farray v. Riker's Island Correctional Facility, No. 1:2012cv04717 - Document 50 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Defendants' 42 motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiff's claims against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 10/16/2013. C/mailed by Chambers. (Forwarded for Judgment.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED u.s. IN CLInK'S OFFICI! DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. * OCT 1 6 2013 * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- x BROOKLYN OFFICE 12-CV-4717 (ARR)(LB) JEFFERSON FARRA Y, NOT FOR ELECTRONIC OR PRINT PUBLICATION Plaintiff, -against- OPINION & ORDER CAPT. ANTHONY GREEN (#689), WARDEN YOLANDA CANTY (#602), CORRECTION OFFICER JAVIER VILLALON (#17074), CORRECTION OFFICER: YOSER COOPER (#8722), Defendants. x ROSS, United States District J~dge:, Jefferson Farray ("plaintiff') brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Captain Anthony Green, Warden Yolanda Canty, Correction Officer ("C.O.") Javier Villalon, and C.O. Yoser Cooper (collectively, "defendants") for purported violations of his constitutional rights while he was a prisoner at the New York City Department of Corrections facility known as Rikers Island ir}!N;¥~hI2d (~'~.fla~ntiif alleges that defendants failed to provide him with a safe and secure living area and failed to provide him with medical care, and thus violated his constitutional rights. ,Defendants move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Rules") to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cognizable constitutional claim upon which relief can be granted.' For the reasons explained below, the Ii ¢ court grants defendants' motion and dismisses the complaint. I Defendants also move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required under the ~rison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "Where a motion is premised on the plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, the question is '·1 The following facts are taken from plaintiffs pleadings2 and are accepted as true for purposes of this motion. On March 15,2011, between 10:45 pm ~d 11 :00 pm, plaintiff injured his left ankle in an incident at Rikers Island, where he w~s' an iIlIll~te. Am. Compl. ~~ IV, IV.A. Although the , ). precise details connecting the leaks in the prison ceiling to plaintiffs injury are not clear from the amended complaint, plaintiff appears to have slipped while exiting the shower area, which had a wet and slippery floor due to the ceiling leaks. See Dkt. #41, Pl.'s July 25 Opp'n, Ex. 1, Ltr. To Grievance, ECF 14. After his injury occurred, plaintiff told defendant C.O. Villalon that he was in "serious pain" but was told;to go ,bacJe,:in.Jllis dell area. Am. Compl. ~ IV. He told e.O. Villalon that his foot was swollen, and C.O. Villalon ignored him for "several minutes." Id. ~ IV and attachment. C.O. Cooper, who allegedly ignored plaintiff when he first called for medical attention, "shortly" came to plaintiffs cell area. Id. He saw that plaintiffs foot was swollen and , I "immediately" called for medical attention. Id.·! Plaintiff received medical treatment that "same night." Id. ~ IV.A. An x-ray was~b~ ofpl~irihffs left ankle, and plaintiff had to wear a cast on his left foot for a "bad" sprain for six weeks. Id. Plaintiff received physical therapy once a week (though he does not state over what period oftime he received weekly physical therapy). whether nonexhaustion is clear from the fapr oft~~'~!pl?"!'lin~t Rivera v. Anna M. Kross Center, No. 10 Civ. 8696(RJH), 2012 WL 383941, at *2 (s.b.N.Y. Feb. '1; 20'12). Here, the court need not decide whether nonexhaustion is clear from the face ofthecomplairit because the court dismisses plaintiffs complaint for substantive reasons. PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) ("In the event that a claim ... fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ... the court may dismiss the underlying claim without first requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies".); Cogueran v. Eagen, No. 98-CV-7185, 2000 WL 96768, at *1 n.l (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2000). 2 Plaintiff filed his original complairit on September 19,2012. Dkt. #1. In an order dated October 22,2012, the court dismissed plaintiffs complaint with thirty days h~ave:to amend. Dkt. #12. On November 19,2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. #13. I' t I [ ~ il! "'I"'~, , " I, : ! Plaintiff states that he wrote a "formal complaint," which he sent to defendant Green on March 24,2011, and to defendant Canty on March 30, 2011, bringing to their attention the leaks from the ceiling in the area in front of the showers, in the "Day Room/Tv area," and "in back of Tier." Id. ~ IV and attachment. Plaintiff states that he did not receive a response to his complaints, id., but he does notlsf~flfY i*hjfi~fnqed complaint whether he followed up on those complaints or whether he had,made any complaints prior to the incident. In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his rights by failing to provide him with a secure living area, failing to provide him with medical treatment, and failing to respond to his complaints. f, ' DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review Under Rule 12(b)(6), the ~opry:lmustl~~~~i>t dn factual allegations in the complaint as true ,. , and draw all reasonable inferenceS in favor of the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007) (per curiam); Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 363 F.3d 149, 151 (2d Cir. 2004). "A pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded" must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. :,,' ¢ Ii , 97, 106 (1976)). Pro se pleadings "must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." United States v. Akinrosotu, 637 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, to survive a motion to dismiss, a pro se complaint must plead a "plausible" claim for relief. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). The complaint's allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief 3 , j ~ I! " , ' I' ,.,' ) I ,~~! ~,.,' ~ I ,-,-~.. to , above the speculative level." Bell At!' Corp. v:!Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. II. Plaintiff's § 1983 Claims against the ' Defendants , , . f To state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must (i) plead facts from which it can be inferred that his constitutional rights were violated and (ii) allege that the defendants were personally involved in that violation of his rights. Sylla v. City of New York, No. 04-cv-5692 (ILG), 2005 WL 3336460, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8,2005) (citing Gill v. Mooney, ~ f I if t.~, I, l 824 F.2d 192, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). 'C'<>rtstruing\he amended complaint and plaintiff's allegations liberally, plaintiff has attempted to allege that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment3 right to be free from "conditions of confinement" that pose an "excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Specifically, he asserts (i) that his conditions of confinement were Unconstitutional due to the ceiling leaks that defendants failed to , . ', i', ,'.;:.,,l '. I have fixed and (ii) that defendants' delay in getting treatment for his injured foot showed deliberate indifference to his medical needs. In Farmer v. Brennan, the Supreme Court held that, for a plaintiff to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim against a prison official for failure to prevent a harm to the plaintiff, 'i, } . '\ 3 .~. ~ " ~i I ., ; . ) It is not clear from the pleadings whether J)Ja:intiffwas "colwkted" or only "detained" during the time period relevant to his claims. If plaintiff was detained but not convicted, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would instead apply to his claims. See Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 2009); Rentas v. Jonson, No. 10 Civ. 4244 (DAB)(FM), 2011 WL 2652473, at *2 & n.4 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2011); HiII v. Nieves, No. 06 Civ. 8213(DLC), 2008 WL 858455, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31,2008). "Ultimately, however, [plaintiffs] status does not affect the analysis because the rubric for evaluating deliberate indifference claims is the same under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." Rentas, 201,1 WL.2652473, at *2 n.4 (internal quotation mark omitted); accord Caiozzo, 581 F.3d at 69-72; Hawkins v. Nassau Cnn'. Corr. Facility, 781 F. Supp. 2d 107, III & n.3 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). J'; f ) _~ 1 ,l r, ! "/ . 4 ; , plaintiff must show (1) that the conditions of his incarceration posed an "objectively" "substantial risk of serious harm" and (2) that the prison official knew of and disregarded, that is, the official exhibited "deliberate indifference" toward, such "excessive risk to inmate health and safety." 511 U.S. at 834-39; see also Hayes v. N.Y.C. Dep't of CoIT., 84 F.3d 614, 620 (2d Cir. 1996). Under the second prong of Farmer, deliberate indifference by a prison official requires ¢ ,~ ;"," 1 -< ~ , ." . "more than mere negligence," 51'1 U.S. at 835, and prison officials cannot be held liable if they act reasonably with respect to a risk, id. at 844-45. Turning to the case at hand, the court applies the Farmer standard to each of the claims that may be inferred from plaintiff s amended ,complaint. A. Plaintiff's claim regarding the conditions of his confinement To plead a deprivation of his rights that is "objectively, sufficiently serious" under the Farmer standard, plaintiff must allege that the defendants' actions "resulted in the denial of the minimal civilized measures of life's necessities" I,md that he was "incarcerated under conditions , I .;. .1. , " ,'~ ~'i: ' ,. posing a substantial risk of seriou~ hain;t." Id. at 834 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, plaintiff appears to assert that the problematic conditions of his incarceration were unfixed ceiling leaks in various areas of the prison resulting in a wet or slippery floor, which could (and seemingly did) cause plaintiff to slip and injur~' pimself. Courts in this circuit, as well as in other circuits, have repeatedly held that "a wet 01:. slippery floor does not pose an objectively excessive risk to prisoners" sufficient to give rise to a constitutional claim. Sylla, 2005 WL , 3336460, at *3 (no constitutional violation where plaintiff slipped when forced to use flooded bathroom; compiling case law); see also, e.g., Rentas v. Jonson, No. 10 Civ. 4244 (DAB)(FM), 2011 WL 2652473, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2011) (no constitutional claim for slip-and-fall 5 resulting from ceiling leak); Hawkins v. Nassau Cnty. COIT. Facility, 781 F. Supp. 2d 107, 113 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (water on floor of shower area cannot, as a matter oflaw, state § 1983 claim; I I 1 compiling cases); Davis v. Reilly, 344F. Supp. ~,d 361,367 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (failure to provide , ,;' ¢ t , I, shower mats not a constitutional violation); Wehrhahn v. Frank, No. 04-C-475-C, 2004 WL i ' 2110755, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 17,2004) (failure to put up "slippery when wet" sign not constitutional violation but merely "claim of negligence"). As another court in this district has stated, "alleged water in the shower area does not deprive plaintiff of a basic human need and, thus, cannot as a matter of law give rise to a constitutional violation. . .. Although water on a floor certainly implicates safety, not every safety issue in a jail implicates a constitutional right; rather, the alleged safety issue must expose the inmate to serious damage to future health. Water on the floor of the shower area ... in a jail simply cannot meet that standard." Hawkins, 781 F. Supp. 2d at 113. This court agrees that ceiling leaks causing a wet floor are not a "sufficiently " I serious" risk to state a plausible constitutional claim. ,'I ,', I Moreover, plaintiffs allegations regarding defendants' awareness of, and failure to fix, the leaks after he complained to certain prison officials do not transform his otherwise insufficient pleading into a plausible constitutional claim. It is not clear from the pleadings whether plaintiff sent complaint letters alerting prison officials to the leaks prior to his injury. I , The only letters he mentions in his amended 90mplaint were those he sent after the date of his riC ¢ : \ : , ' asserted injury. Am. Compl. ~ I. ". f\ ; IV and attachment. Even had the defendants known about the leaky ceilings, as plaintiff appears to assert in his opposition papers, see Dkt. #38, PI. 's June 24 Opp'n, ECF 5, 9, the defendants' alleged awareness of the problem would give rise to an , :!. inference of negligence rather than the requisi,e ,"deliberate indifference." In Sylla, another I\, I ! Ii~ I court in this district held that, even w~ere a plaintiff alleged that he was forced to use a flooded 6 i. t. !" bathroom and that the defendant correction officer "knew that plaintiff might injure himself," such allegations could not "transform a wet floor into anything more than a negligent condition." 2005 WL 3336460, at *3; accord Rentas, 201 ~ WL 2652473, at *3 ("Even assuming, however, that these defendants had knowledge pfthe wet,flQor, [plaintiff] has, at best, established that they were negligent by failing to address (or warn him of) this condition."); Edwards v. N.Y.C. Dep't ofCorr., No. 08 Civ. 05787(PGG), 2009 WL 2596595, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2009) ("[C]ourts have held that allegations of wet conditions leading to a slip-and-fall will not support a Section 1983 claim even where, as here, the plaintiff also alleges that the individual defendants had notice of the wet condition but failed to: addtessiit"); but see Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't ofCorr., No. 06 Civ. 2011(RJS), 2008 WL 953616, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3,2008) (allowing Section 1983 claim to proceed where, prior to slip-and-fall, plaintiff had repeatedly warned prison officials of a leak causing puddles in his cell). Here, the unfixed ceiling leaks may have been a negligent condition, but plaint~'ffhas pleaded no facts that would allow the court to infer that they rose to the level' of an '-."oBje'ctiveiy excessive risk" of "serious harm" to him or that defendants were deliberately indifferent to such risk. Accordingly, this claim cannot survive a motion to dismiss. B. PlaintifFs claim regarding delayed medical care Plaintiff also asserts a claini;thM his'rig!its were violated by C.O. Villalon's and C.O. Cooper's "failure to get medical care" for plaintiffs injury. Am. Compl. ~ IV and attachment. The Second Circuit has stated that an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of adequate medical care requires a plaintiff to show that "(1) under.l;lliobjective standard the alleged deprivation is 'sufficiently serious' in the sense that a condidoaofurgency, one that may produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain exists; and (2)clnder a SUbjective standard, the prison official 7 knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Chatin v. Artuz, 28 F. '1l<1 ~f.·~t,,: i· t.1.'~.i\1·~ !; App'x 9, 10 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Chatin, the Second Circuit stated unequivocally that a sprained ankle, the injury of which plaintiff here complains, does "not rise to the level of seriousness that the Eighth Amendment requires." Id.; accord Cogueran v. Eagen, No. 98-CV-7185, 2000 WL 96768, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20,2000) (possible sprained I. i,,; J ankle and bone spur not "sufficiently serious"). Moreover, plaintiff bases his claim for .,,~; '! inadequate medical care on the fact that he was told to go back to his cell after his injury and that, when he complained to the defendants, they ignored him. Am. CompI. ~ IV and attachment. He does not allege that the medical treatment he received was in any way inadequate. He admits that he was only ignored for "several minutes," that defendant C.O. Cooper "shortly came" to plaintiffs cell after plaintiff called f~r'medicar.attention, that C.O. Cooper "immediately" called 1...I;i l: ", .. nc.'. ',. ,';' 'I . r '\ for medical attention when he saw that plaintiffs fo'ot was swollen, and that plaintiff received medical treatment that "same night." Id. ~~ IV, IV.A and attachment. These allegations cannot give rise to an inference of deliberate il)differerice to serious medical needs. See, e.g., Bilal v. White, 494 F. App'x 143, 145 (2d Cir: 2012) ("tempo~ary delay or interruption in the provision ~ , of otherwise adequate medical treatment for 'I [~lai~iiffs] ailments lasting only a few hours" not deliberate indifference even where underlying conditions "arguably are serious"); Chatin, 28 F. App'x at 11 (no deliberate indifference where prison officials waited two days before taking plaintiff with sprained ankle to hospital for x-rays); Vansertima v. Dep't of CoIT., No. 10 CV 3214(RJD)(RER), 2012 WL 4503412, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2012) (twenty-four hour delay " 11"1' in treatment was "minor and incQn~equentiaP'and "no Ihore than the inconvenience all patients face in receiving medical care, p~rticularly when, [as in this case], their medical condition is not grave") (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); Coqueran, 2000 WL 96768, at ~ , 8 ,! :1 ,) *4 (two-month delay between ankle injury and diagnostic x-rays not deliberate indifference). Thus, plaintiff s medical indifference claim must also be dismissed. III. Leave to Amend Although plaintiff has not' explicitly requested leave to further amend his complaint, the court nonetheless considers whether he should l~e given an opportunity to replead his claims. "A , court generally should not dismisk~:~f6 se . , b'~rri~iaiJt 'without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.'" Vansertima, 2012 WL 4503412, at *7 (citing Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411,416 (2d Cir. 2002)). This court has already provided plaintiff with leave to amend his complaint once. See Dkt. #12. Although Rule 15(a)(2)jhst11i1~ts courts to "freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), ''justice does not so require if amendment would be futile," Xiang Li v. Morrisville State ColI., 434 F. App'x 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2011). An amendment would be futile if, even when better pleaded, the claim would not survive a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Lucente v. IBM Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002); Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000), It ,~sch!ar from the foregoing discussion that ij ,r . i (. . . ~ ., I, it, ' , ' , ... allowing the plaintiff to amendhi's complaint a second time would be futile . . i 9 '; I' CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiffs claims against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED. /S/ Judge Allyne R. Ross Allyne R. R ss United States District Ju Dated: October 16, 2013 Brooklyn, New York 10 e SERVICE LIST Jefferson Farray # 045-857-146 Buffalo Federal Detention Facility 4250 Federal Drive Batavia, NY 14020 !'
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
