Ortiz v. Rikers Island Prison et al
| Jovan Ortiz |
| Rikers Island Prison, Department of Community Correction and Supervision (New York State), Manhattan Detention Center, N.Y.S. Dept. of Corrections and City of New York |
| 7:2014cv06856 |
| August 22, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Cathy Seibel |
| Prisoner: Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 22, 2015. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 22 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Decision and Order dated July 20, 2015, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted, and judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendants' in the following cases 14-cv6856, 14-cv-7383, 14-cv-8517, and 14-cv-9236; accordingly, these cases are closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 7/22/2015) (Attachments: #1 Notice of Right to Appeal, #2 Notice of Right to Appeal)Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 7:14-cv-07383-CS, 7:14-cv-08517-CS, 7:14-cv-09236-CS(dt) |
| Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: #22 Clerk's Judgment, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. (dt) |
| Mailed a copy of #21 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, to Jovan Ortiz 14R0513 Ogdensburg Correctional Facility One Correction Way Ogdensburg, NY 13669. (soh) |
| Mailed notice of Right to Appeal re: #22 Clerk's Judgment, to Jovan Ortiz 14R0513 Ogdensburg Correctional Facility One Correction Way Ogdensburg, NY 13669. (soh) |
Filing 21
ORDER in case 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED; granting (15) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 7:14-cv-06856-CS; granting (14) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 7:14-cv-07383-CS; granting (14) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 7:14-cv-08517-CS; granting (14) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 7:14-cv-09236-CS.For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions, (14-CV-6856, Doc. 15; 14-CV-7383, Doc. 14; 14-CV-8517, Doc. 14; 14-CV-9236, Doc. 14), enter judgment for Defendants, and close each of the above-captioned cases. (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 7/20/2015) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 7:14-cv-07383-CS, 7:14-cv-08517-CS, 7:14-cv-09236-CS (rj)
|
| Transmission to Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmitted re: (21 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS, 21 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS, 21 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS, 21 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS) Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, to the Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: (21 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS, 21 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS, 21 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS, 21 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS) Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 7:14-cv-07383-CS, 7:14-cv-08517-CS, 7:14-cv-09236-CS(rj) |
| Pro Se Payment of Fee $350 Processed: Money Order processed by the Finance Department on 7/8/2015, Receipt Number 465401129734. (ew) |
| Filing 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Summary Judgment Motion Papers served on Jovan Ortiz on May 18, 2015. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by City of New York, Manhattan Detention Center, Rikers Island Prison. (Porter, Eric) |
| Filing 19 DECLARATION of Eric Porter in Support re: #15 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by City of New York, Manhattan Detention Center, Rikers Island Prison. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Porter, Eric) |
| Filing 18 DECLARATION of Dr. P. Andrew Karam in Support re: #15 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by City of New York, Manhattan Detention Center, Rikers Island Prison. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Porter, Eric) |
| Filing 17 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #15 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document filed by City of New York, Manhattan Detention Center, Rikers Island Prison. (Porter, Eric) |
| Filing 16 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by City of New York, Manhattan Detention Center, Rikers Island Prison. (Porter, Eric) |
| Filing 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by City of New York, Manhattan Detention Center, Rikers Island Prison.(Porter, Eric) |
| Filing 14 DECLARATION OF JOVAN ORTIZ, IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. Document filed by Jovan Ortiz. Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS(lnl) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER: In conclusion, because Plaintiffs have not stated any reason that their cases should not proceed in the manner outlined in Rahman, the Court orders the parties in the above-captioned member case to engage in a sixty-day period of discovery limited to the issue of whether the radiation dose emitted by the SecurPass presents a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiffs' future health. At the close of that discovery period, Defendants may make a motion for summary judgment. If any part of the case remains viable following that summary judgment motion, the parties shall have the ability to conduct full discovery (under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Davison). The schedule is as follows: 1. Limited discovery to be completed by April 19, 2015. 2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment to be filed by May 19, 2015. 3. Plaintiff's opposition to be filed by June 18, 2015. 4. Defendants' reply to be filed by July 2, 2015. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to docket this Order in the lead case and in each of the cases listed in the caption. SO ORDERED. (Limited Discovery due by 4/19/2015. Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/19/2015. Oppositions due by 6/18/2015. Replies due by 7/2/2015.) (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 2/20/2015) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 7:14-cv-07383-CS, 7:14-cv-08517-CS, 7:14-cv-09236-CS(lnl)
|
| Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: (13 in 7:14-cv-08517-CS, 13 in 7:14-cv-08517-CS, 13 in 7:14-cv-07383-CS, 13 in 7:14-cv-07383-CS, 13 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS, 13 in 7:14-cv-09236-CS, 13 in 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 13 in 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 155 in 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 155 in 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED) Order, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 7:14-cv-07383-CS, 7:14-cv-08517-CS, 7:14-cv-09236-CS (lnl) |
| Mailed a copy of #13 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, to Jovan Ortiz 14R0513 Ogdensburg Correctional Facility One Correction Way Ogdensburg, NY 13669. (ca) |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: (140 in 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 9 in 7:14-cv-07383-CS) Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (8 in 7:14-cv-08517-CS, 139 in 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED) Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (133 in 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 9 in 7:14-cv-06856-CS) Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. Document filed by The City Of New York,. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 7:14-cv-07383-CS, 7:14-cv-08517-CS(Porter, Eric) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: (133 in 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 9 in 7:14-cv-06856-CS) Order to Show Cause. Document filed by Jovan Ortiz. Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS(lnl) (Main Document 11 replaced on 2/19/2015) (lnl). |
| Mailed a copy of #10 Order of Service, to Jovan Ortiz 14R0513 Ogdensburg Correctional Facility One Correction Way Ogdensburg, NY 13669. (soh) |
| Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Jovan Ortiz.(vn) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER OF SERVICE: The Court dismisses Plaintiffs claims against Defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to add the City of New York as a Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that Defendant City of New York waive service of summons. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Waiver of Service due by 12/22/2014. (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 11/19/2014) (lnl)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: In this consolidated action, Plaintiffs are all inmates or former inmates at facilities run by the New York City Department of Correction. The Complaints allege that Plaintiffs have been exposed to harmful levels of radiation emitted by the RadPro SecurPass X-ray body scanning equipment ("SecurPass") used at these facilities for security purposes. In the above-listed case, Plaintiff alleges that he is scanned on a frequent and recurring basis. To establish a constitutional violation based on a claim that prison officials placed an inmate's health in danger, the inmate must show that the officials acted with "deliberate indifference" to a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious harm. See Florio v. Canty, 954 F. Supp. 2d 227, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993)). This deliberate indifference standard is evaluated under a two-pronged test comprised of both objective and subjective components. See Hathaway v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 550, 553 (2d Cir. 1996). First, "the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious," and second, "a prison official must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). By Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2014, I denied (in relevant part) a Motion to Dismiss in Rahman v. Schriro, No. 13-CV-6095, the lead case in this consolidated action. (See 13-CV-6095 Doc. 27.) That Opinion (the "Rahman Opinion") held based on the limited factual information of which judicial notice may be taken in connection with a Motion to Dismiss that allegations that an inmate is subjected to multiple SecurPass scans on a daily basis "suggest with sufficient plausibility that Plaintiff may be able to demonstrate through discovery that a serious present injury or a future risk of serious injury exists." (Rahman Opinion at 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).) The Rahman Opinion observed, however, that according to information published by the SecurPass manufacturer (which was submitted by Defendants but which I excluded for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss), it appeared that the SecurPass system does not in fact emit dangerous levels of radiation, even if an individual is scanned thousands of times per year. (See id. at 18 and n.4.) Because that issue was potentially dispositive, I therefore ordered the parties to engage in a sixty-day period of limited discovery solely on the issue of whether the cumulative effect of regular SecurPass scans presents a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate's future health. (Id.) At the close of that period, Defendants could make a Motion for Summary Judgment, and if any part of the case survived that Motion, full discovery would be ordered. (Id.) The complaint in the above-listed case includes allegations similar to those in the Rahman case: namely, that Plaintiff is subjected to SecurPass scans on a frequent and recurring basis. It appears to the Court that under the governing law and the analysis laid out in the Rahman Opinion, this Complaint would not be subject to dismissal on the basis that it fails to allege an objectively sufficiently serious risk to Plaintiff's health. Therefore, the parties in the case listed above are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, filed with the Court no later than thirty days from the date of this Order as to Plaintiff, and thirty days after service or waiver of service as to Defendant, as to why the Court should not order a sixty-day period of limited discovery, solely on the issue of whether the cumulative effect of regular SecurPass scans presents a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate's future health, to be followed by an opportunity for Defendant to move for summary judgment on this issue, if appropriate. Because this issue is potentially dispositive, it is the opinion of the Court that proceeding in this fashion would be more efficient than entertaining many separate Motions to Dismiss regarding alleged individualized deficiencies in each Complaint. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to docket this Order to Show Cause in the lead case and in the case listed in the caption. Copies of this Order, the Rahman Opinion, and any unpublished cases cited therein will be mailed to each of the Plaintiffs in the cases to which this Order applies. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 11/19/2014) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS(lnl)
|
| Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: (133 in 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 9 in 7:14-cv-06856-CS) Order to Show Cause, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 7:14-cv-06856-CS(lnl) |
| Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: #10 Order of Service, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. (lnl) |
|
Filing 8
CONSOLIDATION ORDER: In this series of cases, Plaintiffs are all inmates or former inmates at facilities run by the New York City Department of Correction. The Complaints allege that Plaintiffs have been exposed to harmful levels of radiation emitted by the body scanning equipment used at these facilities for security purposes, or allege that Plaintiffs' privacy rights have been violated by such searches and scans. Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court on motion or sua sponte may order the consolidation of related cases. See Devlin v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999). If the actions "involve a common question of law or fact," the Court may "consolidate the actions" or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Before issuing such a consolidation order, the Court must consider both "equity and judicial economy," and "efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justice." Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130. By Order dated August 6, 2014, the Court consolidated several similar cases for trial pursuant under Rule 42(a). (See Rahman v. Schriro, No. 13-CV-6095, Doc. 31.) These cases involve common questions of fact with the consolidated action, such as the amount and type of radiation emitted by the scanning equipment and whether such levels of radiation can be harmful to humans. These cases also involve common questions of law with the consolidated action, such as what remedies are available under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e. Adding these cases to the consolidated action would clearly serve the interests of judicial economy and would not cause any discernable prejudice to any party. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 42(a), the above listed cases are hereby added to the "In re RadPro SecurPass Scanner Cases" consolidated action under Docket No. 13-CV-6095 for all purposes. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to docket this Order in the consolidated action and in each of the cases listed above. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 11/19/2014) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED et al. (lnl)
|
| Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: (6 in 7:14-cv-08274-CS, 6 in 7:14-cv-08037-CS, 6 in 7:14-cv-08777-CS, 6 in 7:14-cv-06600-CS, 6 in 7:14-cv-08099-CS, 8 in 7:14-cv-07385-CS, 6 in 7:14-cv-06467-CS, 131 in 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED, 8 in 7:14-cv-06856-CS, 6 in 7:14-cv-08639-CS) Consolidation Order, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. Filed In Associated Cases: 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED et al. (lnl) |
| CONSOLIDATED MEMBER CASE: Create association to 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED. (lnl) |
| Mailed notice re: Notice of Case Assignment/Reassignment to the plaintiff(s) of record. (rdz) |
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Cathy Seibel. Judge Loretta A. Preska is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu) |
| Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison is so designated. (pgu) |
| CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 7:13-cv-06095-CS-PED. (pgu) |
| Mailed a copy of #6 Order Granting IFP Application to Jovan Ortiz with Return Receipt Requested. (vj) |
| Authorization Deduction Letter Mailed to Warden or Superintendent Ogdensburg Correctional Facility One Correction Way Ogdensburg, NY 13669 on 11/6/14. (soh) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION: Leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized. 28 U.S.C. 1915. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/5/2014) (vj)
|
| Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: #6 Order Granting IFP Application, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. (vj) |
| Filing 5 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Jovan Ortiz.(sc) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEES OR IFP APPLICATION: Plaintiff is directed to render payment of the filing fees or submit an IFP application to this Court's Pro Se Office within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Filing Fee due by 10/31/2014. In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Application due by 10/31/2014. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on October 1, 2014) (Attachments: #1 IFP Application)(jjg)
|
| Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: #4 Order Directing Payment of Fee or IFP Application,,,, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. (jjg) |
| Mailed a copy of #4 Order Directing Payment of Fee or IFP Application, to Jovan Ortiz 14R0513 Ogdensburg Correctional Facility One Correction Way Ogdensburg, NY 13669. (ca) |
| NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Loretta A. Preska. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu) |
| Filing 3 Prison Authorization. Document filed by Jovan Ortiz. (moh) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Jovan Ortiz.(moh) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Department of Community Correction and Supervision (New York State), Manhattan Detention Center, N.Y.S. Dept. of Corrections, Rikers Island Prison. Document filed by Jovan Ortiz. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(moh) |
| Case Designated ECF. (moh) |
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 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.
