Kellogg v. New York State Department of Correctional Services et al
| Laurie Kellogg |
| Elaine Lord, Lucien LeClaire, Donna M. Masterson, Lester Wright, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Steve Bernardi, Frank Headly, Glenn S. Gourd, Ada Perez, Terrence McElroy, Gwen E. Schneider, Lori Goldstein, Robert Ball, Brandon Smith, Christopher Murray, Mark Armstrong, Gary Notaro, Michael Barclay, Barron Roger, Tracy Duncan, Binita Williams, Allen Robinson and Roslie Jackson |
| 1:2007cv02804 |
| April 9, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Westchester |
| Barbara S. Jones |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER: #97749 that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The following motions to dismiss are GRANTED: Defendants' unopposed motion to dismiss Claims 5-8 and 12-15; Defendants' motion to dismi ss claims based on events occurring prior to April 6, 2004; Defendants' motion to dismiss those claims that rely on the "tracker" designation as an independent Constitutional violation; Defendants' motion to dismiss claims of cons piracy; and Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Goldstein The following motions to dismiss are DENIED: Defendants' motion to dismissall claims for failure to e xhaust administrative remedies; Defendants' motion to dismissPlaintiffs claim of deprivation of property without due process; Defendants' motion todismiss Equal Protection claims; and Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim ofde liberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant McElroy. The following motions to dismiss are DENIED: Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Defendants' motion to dismiss Pl aintiffs claim of deprivation of property without due process; Defendants' motion to dismiss Equal Protection claims; and Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant M cElroy. As to Defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims for failure to allege personal involvement: Defendants' motion to dismiss claims of sexual harassment under s.1983 against Defendants Ball and Armstrong is DENIED. With respect to all other surviving claims in which Defendants Ball and Armstrong are named, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Perez for deprivation of property without due process a nd for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss the remainder of the surviving claims against Defendant Perez is DENIED. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Sch neider under s.1983 for a First Amendment violation is DENIED. Defendants' motion to dismiss all other surviving claims against Defendant Schneider is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim under s.1983 for violation of due process against Defendants Smith and Notaro is DENIED. Defendants' motion to dismiss all other surviving claims against Defendants Smith and Notaro is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 7/15/09) (pl) Modified on 7/20/2009 (jab).
|
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
