Clark v. Gardner et al, No. 9:2017cv00366 - Document 47 (N.D.N.Y 2018)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which defendants objected, the 45 Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ORDERED that 1. Defendants' 31 partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. Defendants' partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRA NTED regarding defendant Annucci's personal involvement in plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim as it relates to the sixth and final disciplinary sanction but plaintiff is granted leave to amend to allege Annucci's person al involvement in the sixth and final disciplinary sanction; and 3. Defendants' partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is DENIED as to plaintiff's alleging of an actual liberty interest as it pertains to his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 8/30/18.{order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

Download PDF
Clark v. Gardner et al Doc. 47 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------JAMEL CLARK, Plaintiff, -v- 9:17-CV-366 (DNH/TWD) GERALD GARDNER, Lt. of Corrections Officers, Shawangunk Correctional Facility; JOSEPH SMITH, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility; LT. PALEN, Lt. of Corrections Officers, Shawangunk Correctional Facility; RONALD FARAH, Plant Superintendent of Facility Maintenance, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, formerly known as Farra; ANTHONY ANNUCCI, Commissioner of the New York State Dept. of Corrections; D. VENETTOZI, Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Program; DAVE DEGRAFF, Corrections Officer, Shawangunk Correctional Facility; GEORGE KARAMANOS, Corrections Officer, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, formerly known as Caramonos; MCELROY, Corrections Officer, Shawangunk Correctional Facility; SERGEANT HARRISON, Shawangunk Correctional Facility; and PINGOTTI, D.S.S., Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: JAMEL CLARK Plaintiff pro se 99-A-0475 Elmira Correctional Facility P.O. Box 500 Dockets.Justia.com Elmira, NY 14902 BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Attorney General for the State of New York Attorney for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 DAVID A. ROSENBERG, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Jamel Clark brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 5, 2018, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendants Gardner, Pingotti, Palen, Smith, Venettozi, and Annucci's partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) be granted in part and denied in part. Defendants filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation. Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which defendants 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' partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. Defendants' partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED regarding defendant Annucci's personal involvement in plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim as it relates to the sixth and final disciplinary sanction but plaintiff is granted 2 leave to amend to allege Annucci's personal involvement in the sixth and final disciplinary sanction; and 3. Defendants' partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is DENIED as to plaintiff's alleging of an actual liberty interest as it pertains to his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2018 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.