Bradshaw v. Annucci et al

Bradshaw v. Annucci et al

Case Number:	9:2023cv00602
Filed:	July 24, 2023
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Prisoner Office
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 24, 2024	Filing 79 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that defendants' motion to revoke plaintiff's IFP status (Dkt. No. 62 ) and conditionally dismiss the complaint is DENIED as set forth above. ORDERED that plaintiff's Second Preliminary Injunction Motio n (Dkt. No. 23 ) is DENIED as set forth above. ORDERED that plaintiff's Third Preliminary Injunction Motion (Dkt. No. 74 ) is DENIED as set forth above. ORDERED that plaintiff's Stay Request (Dkt. No. 29 ) is DENIED as set forth above. ORDERED that defendants shall file a response to the complaint within thirty (30) days of this Decision and Order. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on April 24, 2024. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas )
July 24, 2023	Filing 5 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff's application for leave to proceed IFP (Dkt. No. 2 ) is GRANTED in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that he is entitled to the "imminent danger" exception. ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to update the docket to add any officials identified herein as defendants who are not currently recognized as such. ORDERED that the following claims SURVIVE sua sponte review: (1) p laintiff's retaliation claims against defendants Osborn, Bailey, Menard, Trombley, Marshall, Keleher, Plonka, Gettman, Gravlin, Bishop, Mitchell, Fletcher, Veneske, Rowe, Lamica, and Keating (i.e., each of plaintiff's retaliation claims oth er than the Second Retaliation Claim against defendant Locke, the Third Retaliation Claim, the Seventh Retaliation Claim, the TwelfthRetaliation Claim, and the Fifteenth Retaliation Claim); (2) plaintiff's mail tampering claims against defendan ts Lamica, Locke, Keating, Lord, John Doe #6, and Ayer; (3) plaintiff's free exercise claims against defendants Bishop, Stickney, Uhler, and Annucci based on the denial of congregate services and religious meals; (4) plaintiff's excessive f orce and failure-to-intervene claims against defendants Osborn, Corrections Sergeant John Doe #1, Phillips, Tyler, Menard, Bailey, Trombley, Cymbrak, Mitchell, Chase, Marshall, Gettman, Morrison, Corrections Sergeant John Doe #2, Corrections Officer John Doe #3, Gravlin,Robare, Carter, Corrections Officer John Doe #4, Plonka, Keleher, and Harmer (i.e., the excessive force and failure-to-intervene claims related to each of the ten assaults identified in the recitation of facts); (5) plaintiff� 39;s failure-to-protect claims against defendants McQuinn, Waite, Bishop, Uhler, Fletcher, Osborn, Rowe, Veneske, Nichols, Holmes, Annucci, Keleher, Debyah, Gravlin, North, Harrigan, Classification and Movement Corrections Officers John Doe #1 and Jo hn Doe #2, Orbegozo, Corrections Sergeant John Doe #1, Plonka, Gettman, Carter, Sturgen, Lewis, Sharpe, Dumas, Hollenbeck, DeCosse, Gordon, and Jubert (i.e., the failure-to-protect claims related to each of the nine inmate assaults identified in the recitation of facts); (6) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claim against defendant Gravlin based on inadequate heating in plaintiff's housing unit between September 25 and October 2, 2021; (7) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claim against defendants Austin Martin and Marshall based on defendant Martin removing plaintiff's mattress from his cell, with approval from defendant Marshall, from December 6 to December 11, 2021; (8) plaintiff's conditions-of-confineme nt claim against defendant Corrections Sergeant Jane Doe based on this official "compell[ing] plaintiff to remain outside to stand in the freezing cold weather for about five or six hours while the officers and defendant Jane Doe remained inside the facility or on the bus with other prisoners[,]"; (9) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claim against defendants Gravlin, Veneske, Uhler, and Bishop based on these of officials denying plaintiff in-cell cleaning supplies between Apr il and September, 2022, and December, 2022 and January, 2023; (10) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claims against defendants Uhler, Bishop, and Annucci based on excessive restrictive confinement in the SHU from August 1,2021 to April 12, 2 022; (11) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claims against defendants S. Martin, Uhler, Rodriguez, Terriah, Bishop, LaPlant, Stickney, and Annucci based on excessive restrictive confinement in the RRU; (12) plaintiff's medical indiffere nce claims against defendants Dumas, Gravell, Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2; and (13) plaintiff's due process claims against defendants Stickney, Bishop, Uhler, Gravlin, Veneske, and Annucci based on the nature of his confinement in the RRU. O RDERED that all remaining Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) f or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ORDERED that the Preliminary In junction Motion (Dkt. No. 4 ) is DENIED without prejudice. ORDERED that the Clerk shall TERMINATE the following individuals as defendants in this action: Hastings, Peterson, Spinner, Hooper, McGee, and John Doe #5. ORDERED that upon receipt from plaintiff of the documents required for service, the Clerk shall issue summonses and forward them, along with copies of the complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon defendants Osborn, Bailey, Menard, Trombley, Marshall, Keleher, Plon ka, Gettman, Gravlin, Bishop, Mitchell, Fletcher, Veneske, Rowe, Lamica, Keating Locke, Lord, Ayer, Stickney, Uhler, Annucci, Phillips, Tyler, Cymbrak, Chase, Morrison, Robare, Carter, Harmer, McQuinn, Waite, Nichols, Holmes, Debyah, North, Harrigan, Orbegozo, Sturgen, Lewis, Sharpe, Dumas, Hollenbeck, DeCosse, Gordon, Jubert, Austin Martin, S. Martin, Rodriguez, Terriah, LaPlant, Dumas, and Gravell. The Clerk shall forward a copy of the summons and complaint by electronic mail to the Office of the New York State Attorney General, together with a copy of this Decision and Order; ORDERED that plaintiff must take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the remaining "Doe" defendants and, when identified, seek to amend the complaint to add these individuals as defendants in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on July 24, 2023. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas )

Date Filed

Document Text

April 24, 2024

Filing 79 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that defendants' motion to revoke plaintiff's IFP status (Dkt. No. 62 ) and conditionally dismiss the complaint is DENIED as set forth above. ORDERED that plaintiff's Second Preliminary Injunction Motio n (Dkt. No. 23 ) is DENIED as set forth above. ORDERED that plaintiff's Third Preliminary Injunction Motion (Dkt. No. 74 ) is DENIED as set forth above. ORDERED that plaintiff's Stay Request (Dkt. No. 29 ) is DENIED as set forth above. ORDERED that defendants shall file a response to the complaint within thirty (30) days of this Decision and Order. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on April 24, 2024. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas )

July 24, 2023

Filing 5 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff's application for leave to proceed IFP (Dkt. No. 2 ) is GRANTED in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that he is entitled to the "imminent danger" exception. ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to update the docket to add any officials identified herein as defendants who are not currently recognized as such. ORDERED that the following claims SURVIVE sua sponte review: (1) p laintiff's retaliation claims against defendants Osborn, Bailey, Menard, Trombley, Marshall, Keleher, Plonka, Gettman, Gravlin, Bishop, Mitchell, Fletcher, Veneske, Rowe, Lamica, and Keating (i.e., each of plaintiff's retaliation claims oth er than the Second Retaliation Claim against defendant Locke, the Third Retaliation Claim, the Seventh Retaliation Claim, the TwelfthRetaliation Claim, and the Fifteenth Retaliation Claim); (2) plaintiff's mail tampering claims against defendan ts Lamica, Locke, Keating, Lord, John Doe #6, and Ayer; (3) plaintiff's free exercise claims against defendants Bishop, Stickney, Uhler, and Annucci based on the denial of congregate services and religious meals; (4) plaintiff's excessive f orce and failure-to-intervene claims against defendants Osborn, Corrections Sergeant John Doe #1, Phillips, Tyler, Menard, Bailey, Trombley, Cymbrak, Mitchell, Chase, Marshall, Gettman, Morrison, Corrections Sergeant John Doe #2, Corrections Officer John Doe #3, Gravlin,Robare, Carter, Corrections Officer John Doe #4, Plonka, Keleher, and Harmer (i.e., the excessive force and failure-to-intervene claims related to each of the ten assaults identified in the recitation of facts); (5) plaintiff� 39;s failure-to-protect claims against defendants McQuinn, Waite, Bishop, Uhler, Fletcher, Osborn, Rowe, Veneske, Nichols, Holmes, Annucci, Keleher, Debyah, Gravlin, North, Harrigan, Classification and Movement Corrections Officers John Doe #1 and Jo hn Doe #2, Orbegozo, Corrections Sergeant John Doe #1, Plonka, Gettman, Carter, Sturgen, Lewis, Sharpe, Dumas, Hollenbeck, DeCosse, Gordon, and Jubert (i.e., the failure-to-protect claims related to each of the nine inmate assaults identified in the recitation of facts); (6) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claim against defendant Gravlin based on inadequate heating in plaintiff's housing unit between September 25 and October 2, 2021; (7) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claim against defendants Austin Martin and Marshall based on defendant Martin removing plaintiff's mattress from his cell, with approval from defendant Marshall, from December 6 to December 11, 2021; (8) plaintiff's conditions-of-confineme nt claim against defendant Corrections Sergeant Jane Doe based on this official "compell[ing] plaintiff to remain outside to stand in the freezing cold weather for about five or six hours while the officers and defendant Jane Doe remained inside the facility or on the bus with other prisoners[,]"; (9) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claim against defendants Gravlin, Veneske, Uhler, and Bishop based on these of officials denying plaintiff in-cell cleaning supplies between Apr il and September, 2022, and December, 2022 and January, 2023; (10) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claims against defendants Uhler, Bishop, and Annucci based on excessive restrictive confinement in the SHU from August 1,2021 to April 12, 2 022; (11) plaintiff's conditions-of-confinement claims against defendants S. Martin, Uhler, Rodriguez, Terriah, Bishop, LaPlant, Stickney, and Annucci based on excessive restrictive confinement in the RRU; (12) plaintiff's medical indiffere nce claims against defendants Dumas, Gravell, Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2; and (13) plaintiff's due process claims against defendants Stickney, Bishop, Uhler, Gravlin, Veneske, and Annucci based on the nature of his confinement in the RRU. O RDERED that all remaining Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) f or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ORDERED that the Preliminary In junction Motion (Dkt. No. 4 ) is DENIED without prejudice. ORDERED that the Clerk shall TERMINATE the following individuals as defendants in this action: Hastings, Peterson, Spinner, Hooper, McGee, and John Doe #5. ORDERED that upon receipt from plaintiff of the documents required for service, the Clerk shall issue summonses and forward them, along with copies of the complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon defendants Osborn, Bailey, Menard, Trombley, Marshall, Keleher, Plon ka, Gettman, Gravlin, Bishop, Mitchell, Fletcher, Veneske, Rowe, Lamica, Keating Locke, Lord, Ayer, Stickney, Uhler, Annucci, Phillips, Tyler, Cymbrak, Chase, Morrison, Robare, Carter, Harmer, McQuinn, Waite, Nichols, Holmes, Debyah, North, Harrigan, Orbegozo, Sturgen, Lewis, Sharpe, Dumas, Hollenbeck, DeCosse, Gordon, Jubert, Austin Martin, S. Martin, Rodriguez, Terriah, LaPlant, Dumas, and Gravell. The Clerk shall forward a copy of the summons and complaint by electronic mail to the Office of the New York State Attorney General, together with a copy of this Decision and Order; ORDERED that plaintiff must take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the remaining "Doe" defendants and, when identified, seek to amend the complaint to add these individuals as defendants in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on July 24, 2023. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bradshaw v. Annucci et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?