Ali v. Hogan et al, No. 9:2012cv00104 - Document 34 (N.D.N.Y 2013)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that 32 Report and Recommendations is accepted and adopted in whole. ORDERED that 23 Motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to (a) Plaintiff's § 1983 claim is DISMISSED; (b) Plaintiff 9;s claims pursuant to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act against defendants in their individual capacities are DISMISSED; (c) Plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law claims against defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED; (d) Plai ntiff's claims pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED; (e) Plaintiff's claim pursuant to the New York Mental Hygiene Law is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as follows: (a) DENIED as to plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law claim against defendants in their individual capacities; (b) DENIE D as to plaintiff's claims pursuant to the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacities; (c) DENIED, without prejudice, as to plaintiff's claims pursuant to the ADA f or monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities; and (d) DENIED, without prejudice, as to defendants' qualified immunity defense. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/30/13. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------JAMAAL ALI, Plaintiff, -v- 9:12-CV-0104 DR. MICHAEL F. HOGAN, Commissioner, New York State Office of Mental Health; DR. DONALD SAWYER, Executive Director; and DR. TERRI MAXYMILLIAN, Sex Offender Treatment Program Director, Central New York Psychiatric Center, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: JAMAAL ALI Plaintiff, Pro Se 29635 CNYPC P.O. Box 300 Marcy, NY 13403 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Attorney for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 KRISTEN M. QUARESIMO, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On September 11, 2013, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as follows: (a) Plaintiff's § 1983 claim is DISMISSED; (b) Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act against defendants in their individual capacities are DISMISSED; (c) Plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law claims against defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED; (d) Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED; (e) Plaintiff's claim pursuant to the New York Mental Hygiene Law is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2); 2. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as follows: (a) DENIED as to plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law claim against defendants in their individual capacities; (b) DENIED as to plaintiff's claims pursuant to the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacities; -2- (c) DENIED, without prejudice, as to plaintiff's claims pursuant to the ADA for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities; and (d) DENIED, without prejudice, as to defendants' qualified immunity defense. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2013 Utica, New York. -3-

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.