welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, D. Connecticut
  4. 2014
  5. YOUNG v. CHOINSKI, 3:10-CV-606 (CSH). (2014)

YOUNG v. CHOINSKI, 3:10-CV-606 (CSH). (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Connecticut Number: infdco20140314b87 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2014
Summary: FootNotes 1. The "principles governing admissibility of evidence do not change on a motion for summary judgment." Porter v. Quarantillo, 722 F.3d 94 , 97 (2d Cir.2013) (citing and quoting Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55 , 66 (2d Cir.1997)). See also Santos v. Murdock, 243 F.3d 681 , 683 (2d Cir.2001) ("evidence [on summary judgment] may be, and frequently is, presented in the form of affidavits which, when used, shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as woul
More

FootNotes


1. The "principles governing admissibility of evidence do not change on a motion for summary judgment." Porter v. Quarantillo, 722 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir.2013) (citing and quoting Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 66 (2d Cir.1997)). See also Santos v. Murdock, 243 F.3d 681, 683 (2d Cir.2001) ("evidence [on summary judgment] may be, and frequently is, presented in the form of affidavits which, when used, shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.").
2. The Court has taken judicial notice, as the result of information received in an unrelated case, that plaintiff Cedric Young became incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut, as of April 2013. Doc. 49. He is currently serving a 9 ½ year sentence on that unrelated charge.
3. All page numbers cited refer to the Court's "Document" page numbers appearing in blue in the top line of each page (and not to the page numbers of the original documents, often at the bottom or top corner of the pages).
4. There is some discrepancy as to the item Young used to attempt to cut his arm on April 24, 2008. The DOC "Clinical Record" of that date states that Young used "a piece of broken battery" [Doc. 45-6, p. 7]; but in Young's "inmate grievance," dated May 20, 2008, he asserts that he "attempted to cut [h]is arm with a razor" [Doc. 45-8, p. 7].
5. These particular facts regarding defendant Hartley are based upon the deposition testimony of Young, which defendants filed in support of their motion for summary judgment. Doc. 45-3, p. 12. The Court recognizes that Hartley denies that Young contacted him on the evening of September 3, 2008, but stipulates that such contact was made for purposes of this motion. See Doc. 45-2, p. 10 n. 1.
6. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 states, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,....
7. Furthermore, "[t]he bare allegation that the treatments have so far been unsuccessful is insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference." Bryant v. Wright, 451 Fed.Appx. 12, 14 (2d Cir.2011).
8. See Doc. 45-2, p. 10 n. 1 (Although Hartley "maintains the plaintiff never contacted him during the evening of September 3, 2008, ... [t]he defendants stipulate to the plaintiff's version of the facts for purposes of this motion only.").
9. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that "a supervisor's mere knowledge of his subordinate's discriminatory purpose amounts to the supervisor's violating the Constitution," and held "each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct." 556 U.S. at 677, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
10. DeJesus v. Albright, No. 08 Civ. 5804(DLC), 2011 WL 814838, at *6 n. 4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2011)
11. The Court has examined the exhibits attached to Young's original complaint [Doc. 1] because defendants have cited to them as evidence in support of their summary judgment motion. See Doc. 45-2, p. 16; Doc. 45-1, p. 6. Moreover, plaintiff requested that these exhibits be incorporated into his amended complaint, intending them to remain part of the court record. Doc. 17.
12. In Brooks, the district court held that "[a] supervisory official's receipt of a letter complaining about unconstitutional conduct [was] not enough to give rise to personal involvement on the part of the official." 450 F.Supp.2d at 225. Moreover, "[e]ven the fact that an official ignored a letter alleging unconstitutional conduct [was] not enough to establish personal involvement." Id. at 226 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
13. In Burton, the district court concluded that there was no personal involvement by the superintendent of the correctional facility because the situation which had given rise to the grievance was no longer "ongoing," the request for relief had been satisfied, and the plaintiff had been transferred to another facility before defendant superintendent received plaintiff's appeal. 664 F.Supp.2d at 361-62.
14. The Court notes that Young has also failed to demonstrate an affirmative link between McGill's denial of his grievances and Young's alleged injuries in this action. See, e.g., Poe, 282 F.3d at 123.
15. The Court notes that the Second Circuit has held that "state officials cannot be sued in their official capacities for retrospective relief under section 1983. Nonetheless, state officials can be subject to suit in their official capacities for injunctive or other prospective relief." Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 70 (2d Cir.2005) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
16. Because the deadline to file dispositive motions has expired, any proposed motion for summary judgment must be preceded by, or filed contemporaneously with, a motion to reopen that deadline, demonstrating "good cause" for said extension.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
3:10-CV-606 (CSH).
Counsels
  • James W. Caley
Cited By (4)
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer