Bridgeforth v. County of Rensselaer et al, No. 1:2008cv00779 - Document 72 (N.D.N.Y 2010)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motions for declaratory judgment (Dkt. No. 52 & 62) are DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on March 11, 2010. (sas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OTIS BRIDGEFORTH, Plaintiff, v. 1:08-CV-779 (LEK/RFT) COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court are two duplicative Motions seeking relief designated as declaratory judgment. Dkt. Nos. 52, 62. Plaintiff Otis Bridgeforth is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. In fact, Plaintiff s Motions appear to seek only money damages, presumably on the basis of his pleadings. Plaintiff, following this Court s Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 19) approving and adopting a Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) by Magistrate Judge Randolph Treece reviewing Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915(e)A, has one surviving cause of action in the instant case. He alleges that on August 13, 2007, the same date the Defendant police officers arrested him, they also assaulted him, and that he received a verbal and physical beating in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 See Second Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 10). 1 The Report-Recommendation adopted by this Court allowed a 42 U.S.C § 1983 to proceed based upon allegation of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; in fact, because the allegations are against arresting police officers, the claim is properly brought under the Fourth Amendment. Given Plaintiff s pro se status and the context of his suit, the Court shall construe his 1 There is no basis in law for the Motions which Plaintiff has filed. The submission merely repeats his Complaint, accompanied by some extraneous material concerning jurisdiction. While the Court fully recognizes and takes into account Plaintiff s pro se status, his Motions must be denied. Money damages are unavailable through declaratory judgment, which is simply a ruling on parties rights. Whether viewed as a Motion for judgment on the pleadings or for declaratory judgment, however, the Court finds that neither can be granted for the plain reason that, at this prediscovery juncture, Plaintiff has presented to the Court only the allegations and conclusory statements contained in his Complaint. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motions for declaratory judgment (Dkt. No. 52, 62) are DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 11, 2010 Albany, New York remaining claim as being brought under the Fourth rather than Eighth Amendment. 2

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.