MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge.
Michael Hill ("Plaintiff"), an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), brought this
Plaintiff's undated and unsigned Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt #26) was received by the Court on November 16, 2010. In it, Plaintiff requested judgment in his favor "as the record itself illustrates Defendants acted with the sort of criminally reckless mental state necessary to be found liable for each cause of action alleged in the Complaint." Dkt #26, p. 1 of 69.
On December 4, 2012, the Court (Siragusa, D.J.) issued an order stating that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment would consist of the Statement of Facts attached to his Complaint (Dkt #1), the summary judgment motion (Dkt #26), and the materials docketed as the Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt #40). Judge Siragusa also ordered Defendants to file and serve a response to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion and his motion to supplement the Complaint, along with any cross-motion for summary judgment, on or before January 4, 2013. Defendants sought and obtained an extension of time until January 23, 2013, to file their responsive pleadings.
In their Memorandum (Dkt #47) filed January 23, 2013, in response to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, Defendants state that they are "mov[ing] to dismiss [Plaintiff's] causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law and as for [sic] a response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment." Dkt #47 at 1. The legal standards cited by Defendants pertain only to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c).
After reviewing the parties' submissions, the Court determines that it is proper to treat Defendants' motion to dismiss as a cross-motion for summary judgment. Given that Defendants' attached an
Plaintiff's experience litigating civil rights actions in federal court raises the issue of whether the Court should lessen the degree solicitude normally afforded to
In his motion dated March 4, 2013 (Dkt. #51), Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to additional discovery in the form of records and information relating to pest extermination efforts at Southport for purposes of developing his conditions of confinement claim, set forth as the fifth cause of action in the Complaint.
Pursuant to the Court's Rule 16(b) scheduling order (Dkt #11), the deadline for discovery was December 31, 2010. By the time Plaintiff filed his motion to compel discovery on March 4, 2013, more than three years had passed since the expiration of that deadline. To allow further discovery at this late date requires a showing of "good cause" and leave of the Court.
In accordance with the rules governing the review of motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the factual allegations set forth in Plaintiff's complaint as true.
At all times relevant to the instant action, Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of DOCCS, incarcerated at Southport Correctional Facility ("Southport"). All Defendants in this action are or were employees of DOCCS: Corrections Officer Roger Held ("C.O. Held"), Corrections Officer John Rogers ("C.O. Rogers"), Corrections Sergeant Timothy Allison ("Sgt. Allison"), C.O. Harvey, Inmate Assistant Jacqueline Mackey ("Asst. Mackey"), Hearing Officer James Esgrow ("H.O. Esgrow"), Director of Special Housing Inmate Disciplinary Hearing Program Norman Bezio ("Dir. Bezio"), Corrections Sergeant Randy Hurt ("Sgt. Hurt"), Inmate Grievance Supervisor William Abrunzo ("IGP Supr. Abrunzo"), Nurse Angie Gorg ("Nurse Gorg"), Nurse Administrator Cathy Felker ("Nurse Adminr. Felker") and Southport Superintendent David Napoli ("Supt. Napoli").
On April 5, 2009, Plaintiff was moved to C-Block 8-Company from C-Block 1-Company at Southport. Immediately following this transfer, he was confronted by C.O. Held, the supervisor of that housing unit. Plaintiff requested his Level 2 property from C.O. Held, who denied him access to his property until two days later on the basis that Plaintiff allegedly was a member of the "Blood" gang and because there was no porter available in the unit.
On April 14, 2009, upon Plaintiff's return from a pre-trial teleconference for one of this other federal lawsuits, C.O. Held became belligerent, stating, "[Y]ou better not be suing anyone I know." Statement ("Stmt."), ¶ 15 (Dkt #1).
On June 5, 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to Attica Correctional Facility on a writ of
Shortly thereafter, a conflict on Plaintiff's housing unit arose when the inmate unit porter quit his job, and C.O. Held permitted an unpopular and problematic inmate to serve in that position. According to Plaintiff, C.O. Held's supervisors repeatedly instructed him not to permit this particular inmate out of his cell, and other inmates complained that this inmate had contaminated their food and performed inappropriate sexual acts on the unit. This new unit porter, who has not been identified here, refused to pick up certain inmates' food trays and then reported to the guards that those inmates refused to hand in their trays. The new porter was fired, and two inmates in C-Block 8-Company were moved to Level 1 housing unit under "false pretenses". Plaintiff does not identify who these inmates were, but the Court presumes, based on later statements in the Complaint, that Plaintiff was one of those adversely affected inmates.
According to Plaintiff, C.O. Held did not listen to the inmates' complaints about the unit porter, stated that "no Blood was going to run his company," and proceeded to write a false misbehavior report against Plaintiff alleging the following disciplinary rule violations: Threats (102.10), Area Takeover (104.10), and Lead Others to Participate in Detrimental Action to Facility (104.12). Charge 104.10 eventually was stricken, however. Plaintiff also implicates Sgt. Allison in the writing of this report.
In addition to demoting Plaintiff to Level 1 status and placing him in full restraints (handcuffs, waist chain, and leg irons) during the move, Plaintiff was issued a deprivation order restricting his access to showers, exercise, cell clean-up, and haircuts. Furthermore, Sgt. Allison ordered the escorting guards to destroy Plaintiff's legal paperwork.
On July 13, 2009 at approximately 3:20 p.m., Plaintiff was escorted down B-Block 1-Company by C.O. Harvey and another guard in connection with the misbehavior report. C.O. Harvey returned ten minutes later with some of Plaintiff's Level 1 property, at which time he told Plaintiff, "I read your trial transcripts from that lawsuit and if you expose yourself on my unit I'm going to hurt you. . . and as for your property, you [sic] lucky you got what you [sic] getting now." Compl., ¶ 39; Stmt., ¶ 15.
To protest the false report, Plaintiff filed two grievances, forwarded complaints to Assistant Attorney General In Charge Debra A. Martin and the Commissioner of DOCCS, and spoke with Supt. Napoli during his rounds. On July 13 or 14, 2009, Supt. Napoli "treated Plaintiff as a nuisance . . . rolled his eyes and said Plaintiff's problem was nothing and for him to stop writing grievance complaints." Stmt., ¶ 17. On August 3, 2009, Plaintiff again addressed Supt. Napoli about his grievances concerning the unlawful destruction of his personal and legal property. Supt. Napoli replied, "[M]y officers wouldn't do that, and if they did, just file a claim . . . I'm tired of investigating and dealing with complaints from you . . . you know where you went wrong Hill, you called me Dave, that's where you went wrong." Stmt., ¶ 18. Supt. Napoli thereafter allegedly instructed C.O. Harvey to deprive Plaintiff of his shower and feed-up.
At Plaintiff's request, Asst. Mackey was selected as one of his Tier Assistants. According to Plaintiff, she refused to interview his witnesses and obtain certain documents for him, and also instructed Plaintiff to claim that another inmate made the threats and not to argue that the misbehavior report was false and retaliatory.
H.O. Esgrow, the Tier III Hearing Officer, then improperly obtained an extension to continue Plaintiff's hearing; did not allow Plaintiff to put relevant facts on the record which would have exonerated him, and improperly denied witness testimony on the basis that it was redundant. H.O. Esgrow conducted an off-the-record investigation by taking notes during the hearing, and, when confronted about it, refused to read into the record the contents of his notes. Finally, H.O. Esgrow conferred with Supt. Napoli regarding the hearing, and they "deliberately prevented Plaintiff from proving his innocence by showing the ongoing pattern of abuse" by C.O. Held and Sgt. Allison in issuing false misbehavior reports and threatening inmates. Stmt., ¶ 29.
At the conclusion of the hearing on August 17, 2009, H.O. Esgrow found Plaintiff guilty of Demonstration (104.12) and Threats (102.10), and imposed a penalty of six months in SHU starting January 27, 2010. There was a lesser penalty imposed for three months, but the Court cannot discern it because H.O. Esgrow's handwriting is illegible. On September 17, 2009, Dir. Bezio affirmed H.O. Esgrow's determination, and on September 30, 2009, he denied reconsideration. According to Plaintiff, Dir. Bezio refused to correct numerous procedural errors.
Plaintiff was forced to move into an unsanitary cell that had ants crawling on it, a dirty floor, and a toilet that "reeked of stale urine." Compl., ¶ 74. He was unable to clean the cell, and he complained of being sick every day. However, the nurses only claimed to have received one sick call slip from him.
IGP Supr. Abrunzo deliberately prevented Plaintiff's grievances and appeals from being processed so as to interfere with Plaintiff's efforts to exhaust his remedies against DOCCS employees.
Nurse Gorg deliberately refused to properly assess his skin condition so that a doctor or physician's assistant could be notified and be able to assess him. Further, Nurse Gorg denied Plaintiff sick call by refusing to examine his skin rash and provide him with adequate medical treatment. When he complained, she threatened to write a false misbehavior report against him.
After Plaintiff filed a grievance against Nurse Gorg, she "immediately attacked" him by attempting to give him a tuberculosis ("TB") vaccination. Nurse Gorg did not have him quarantined as a result of his refusal to be vaccinated, and instead placed him in the same housing unit as other inmates. She instructed the guards to deny him all privileges and liberties until he allowed her to administer the TB shot.
Nurse Adminr. Felker deliberately caused Plaintiff to go untreated for his skin rash (which he claimed was eczema) and caused other skin treatments to be delayed. Nurse Adminr. Felker refused to access Plaintiff's medical records and did not examine Plaintiff herself before agreeing with the facility nurses that he did not have eczema. Nurse Adminr. Felker allowed Nurse Gorg to retaliate against Plaintiff by causing him to be denied visits, recreation, a job as a unit porter, and other activities.
To prevail in a Section 1983 action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he has been denied a constitutional or federal statutory right and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.
In
When presented with a Rule 12(b)(6), the court may consider documents that are referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff's possession or that the plaintiff knew of and relied on when bringing suit, or matters of which judicial notice may be taken.
Summary judgment is warranted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
The court must resolve any ambiguities and draw all inferences from the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.
To survive a Rule 56(c) motion, the nonmovant must come forward with "`specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'"
Plaintiff first alleges that one of his previous federal lawsuits,
In order to state a valid retaliation claim, Plaintiff must allege that his actions were protected by the Constitution, and that such "conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse actions taken by prison officials."
The filing of a § 1983 lawsuit is considered a constitutionally protected activity.
Defendant's motion to dismiss this cause of action for failure to state a retaliation claim is granted. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with regard to this claim necessarily is denied.
Plaintiff asserts that his personal property and legal papers were deliberately destroyed when he was transferred to PIMS Level 1. With regard to the personal property and legal papers, even the intentional destruction of an inmate's belongings by a prison officer does not violate the Due Process Clause if the state provides that inmate with an adequate post-deprivation remedy.
Although Plaintiff asserts that his due process rights were violated in regards to the alleged destruction of his legal papers, this claim more properly is analyzed under the First Amendment. "The active interference of prison officials in the preparation or filing of legal documents may constitute denial of access" to the courts.
Defendant's motion to dismiss this cause of action for failure to state a claim in regards to the destruction of his property and legal papers is granted. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with regard to this claim necessarily is denied.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his due process rights by placing him in mechanical restraints during his transfer to Level 1.
The exhibits attached to his Complaint indicate that a restraint order was entered on July 13, 2009, when Plaintiff was issued a misbehavior report for attempting to "usurp the authority of the facility". The restraint order was reviewed and renewed every six days until August 9, 2009. Plaintiff also had the ability to file a grievance, write to the Deputy Superintendent of Security, and file a proceeding pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("C.P.L.R.") Article 78 in connection with the restraint order. In light of review he received and the legal avenues available to him, Plaintiff was afforded sufficient process.
Defendants's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's due process claim regarding the mechanical restraint order is granted, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on this claim is denied.
Plaintiff asserts that he was deprived of a liberty interest with regard to the deprivation order commencing July 13, 2009, restricting his access to haircuts, cell clean-up, shower, and recreation. Based on the documents attached to Plaintiff's Complaint, the deprivation orders were limited in time. For instance, cell clean-up privileges were restored on July 19, 2009; and shower privileges were restored on July 31, 2009. Courts in this Circuit have held that the types of deprivations complained of here do not constitute protected liberty interests.
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's due process claim based on the deprivation is granted, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on that claim is denied.
In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied due process in various ways at the Tier III Hearing relating to the July 13, 2009 misbehavior report issued by C.O. Held. Compl., ¶¶ 54-60.
The filing of baseless or false charges against an inmate does not, in and of itself, give rise to a constitutional violation.
Here, Plaintiff has alleged both that the misbehavior report was retaliatory and that he was denied due process at the Tier III hearing. However, as discussed above, the Court has found that Plaintiff fails to state a claim of retaliation. The Court thus will assess whether Plaintiff alleges a viable due process claim arising out of the Tier III hearing.
Plaintiff asserts that (1) H.O. Esgrow failed to return to the disciplinary hearing following an adjournment and filed an extension under false pretenses; (2) H.O. Esgrow failed to call employee witnesses at Plaintiff's hearing; (3) H.O. Esgrow did not permit testimony from an inmate witness; (5) H.O. Esgrow interfered with Asst. Mackey so as to prevent Plaintiff from presenting a defense; (6) Asst. Mackey refused to provide certain materials relevant to Plaintiff's defense; and (7) Asst. Mackey advised Plaintiff to "inform on another inmate".
Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires that an inmate charged with a disciplinary violation be given (1) advance written notice of the charges at least 24 hours before the hearing; (2) the opportunity to appear at the hearing, to call witnesses, and to present rebuttal evidence; and (3) a written statement by the hearing officer as to the evidence relied on for his decision, and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken.
Plaintiff asserts that H.O. Esgrow did not comply with New York regulations when he requested adjournments for the Tier III hearing. The Second Circuit has made clear that the seven-day period established by New York State regulations is not controlling for purposes of an inmate's due process claim.
According to Plaintiff, H.O. Esgrow improperly failed to call employee witnesses at Plaintiff's hearing and did not permit testimony inmate Deatrick Marshall to testify. The Second Circuit has stated that "`a prisoner's request for a witness can be denied on the basis of irrelevance or lack of necessity.'"
The transcript of the Tier hearing, produced by Defendants in response to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, refutes his claim. Plaintiff admitted that two of the employee witnesses, Sgt. Butler and Sgt. Shope, were not on the gallery at the time of the incident; another employee, named Sandroni, was not even working that day. Three of Plaintiff's inmate witnesses (Williams, Perkins, Holyfield) testified favorably for his defense. Plaintiff admitted that the uncalled witness, Deatrick Marshall, would not have provided any testimony different from that already provided by Williams, Perkins, and Holyfield, and H.O. Esgrow determined that Marshall's testimony would be cumulative. With regard to each of the uncalled witnesses, H.O. Esgrow properly provided legitimate reasons, in writing and at the time of the hearing, for his decision not to have them appear. H.O. Esgrow thus fully complied with federal constitutional requirements in regard to Plaintiff's right to call witnesses.
Under the due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment, a corrections officer assigned to assist a prisoner who, by reason of his confinement in a segregated housing unit, is impeded in preparing his defense, has obligation to perform the investigatory tasks which inmate, were he able, could perform for himself.
Again, the documents submitted by both Plaintiff and Defendants' refute Plaintiff's complaints about Asst. Mackey, who verified in writing to H.O. Esgrow that she interviewed all of Plaintiff's requested witnesses, and that they all agreed to testify that Plaintiff never made any threats about the food trays or porters. With regard to his claim that she failed to provide him the log book entries for several months prior to the incident, for purposes of showing that C.O. Held had a history of issuing similar false misbehavior reports, this information was not relevant to the issues to be determined at the hearing, i.e., whether or not Plaintiff made threats.
If, as the Court has found, the
Plaintiff has attached H.O. Esgrow's written findings to his Complaint, which indicate that H.O. Esgrow relied on the misbehavior report, which contained the allegation that Plaintiff yelled, "[T]hat fucker in 20 cell ain't coming out, I'll make sure no one returns their trays if he's out. You people don't pick who the porter is, we will tell you who'll come out," in addition to the eyewitness testimony of C.O. Held. Compl., Exs. K & P. "New York State courts have found that a misbehavior report, together with the eyewitness testimony of its author, meets the state law standard of `substantial evidence' to support a determination of guilt in the prison disciplinary context."
Plaintiff alleges that Dir. Bezio erroneously refused to expunge or reverse H.O. Esgrow's adverse disciplinary finding. Since, as discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to show that his rights were violated during the disciplinary proceeding conducted by H.O. Esgrow, there is no legal basis for his claim against Dir. Bezio.
The fourth cause of action in the Complaint alleges that Defendants, acting together, "condoned, encouraged, directed and assisted the actions of the others in a deliberate effort to single out Plaintiff for harsh, arbitrary, and discriminatory treatment" because of Plaintiff's status as a Hebrew Israelite. Compl., ¶¶ 63-64. The alleged conspiracy claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.
"To prove a § 1983 conspiracy, a plaintiff must show: (1) an agreement between two or more state actors or between a state actor and a private entity; (2) to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act done in furtherance of that goal causing damages."
Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to establish any element of a § 1983 conspiracy claim. Rather, he merely recites each Defendant's allegedly improper actions and omissions which, taken individually or together, fail to state a constitutional violation, as discussed elsewhere in this Decision and Order.
To sustain a cause of action for conspiracy under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege and demonstrate that the defendants acted with racial or other class-based animus in conspiring to deprive him of equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities secured by law.
Here, Plaintiff's allegations of a conspiracy based on § 1985(3) are no less vague and conclusory as those offered in support of his § 1983 claim, and they fail to state claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendants' motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims is granted, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Plaintiff contends he was placed in a cell that was dirty, infested with ants, and smelled of urine, and that these conditions violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Compl., ¶¶ 70-77. He asserts he suffered from "sickness stomach pain diarrhea vomiting for days.. . ."
An Eighth Amendment claim based on the physical condition of a correctional facility requires both a showing that the plaintiff lacked "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" while confined, and that the person responsible for this deprivation acted with knowledge and deliberate indifference to a substantial risk to his health or safety.
Although the Second Circuit has found that "[c]ausing a man to live, eat and perhaps sleep in close confines with his own human waste is too debasing and degrading to be permitted[,]"
With regard to his claim that the cell conditions caused him to be ill and that Defendants allowed his condition to remain untreated, his allegations are contradicted by his annexed exhibits, and the Court declines to accept them as true. In particular, Plaintiff references a Captain's Office Memorandum from C. Yehl to Plaintiff dated July 31, 2009, noting that "according to the Facility Medical Department, [Plaintiff] [has] been seen by a nurse for sick call several times since the complaint was submitted." Ex. F (Dkt #1).
Plaintiff also alleges, without further specificity, that prison guards were "deliberately not feeding him any food for 72 hours." Compl., ¶ 77. Plaintiff does not mention the alleged deprivation of food elsewhere in his Complaint, including his statement of material facts.
"While no court has explicitly held that denial of food is a
Plaintiff advances a claim that IGP Supr. Abrunzo conducted inadequate investigations into his complaints and interfered with his grievances. Compl., ¶¶ 78-82. "[T]he law is clear that plaintiff has no constitutional right to have his grievances processed at all, or if processed, to have the procedure done properly."
In any event, Plaintiff's exhibits contradict his assertion that IGP Supr. Abrunzo did not process Grievance No. SPT-47701-09. Rather, his submissions indicate that the grievance was processed and dismissed (Compl., Ex. V). Thus, the Court need not accept his assertions that IGP Supr. Abrunzo failed to process his grievances.
Plaintiff's seventh and final cause of action contains the following allegations regarding his medical care at Southport: (1) Nurse Gorg failed to adequately assess his medical condition and failed to provide adequate medical care for his skin rash, resulting in pain and mental anguish from open sores and skin lesions; (2) Nurse Gorg harassed Plaintiff by attempting to administer a TB vaccination; (3) Nurse Gorg threatened to write a false misbehavior report against Plaintiff; (4) Nurse Gorg failed to notify Plaintiff of the consequences of refusing a TB vaccination; (5) Nurse Adminr. Felker condoned Nurse Gorg's conduct; (6) Nurse Adminr. Felker instructed the Plaintiff not be placed in quarantine after Plaintiff refused the TB shot; (7) when Nurse Adminr. Felker began working at Southport, the nurses were instructed to stop providing treatment for inmates' skin rashes; (8) Nurse Adminr. Felker denied Plainitff medication, treatment, and examination by a physician; and (9) N.A. Felker denied Plaintiff medical treatment due to state budget cuts. Compl., ¶¶ 83-98.
"In order to establish an Eighth Amendment claim arising out of inadequate medical care, a prisoner must prove `deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs.'"
To satisfy the objective element, a prisoner must show a serious illness or injury resulting in the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts to plead a plausible claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not established that he actually suffered from eczema; the documents submitted by Defendants indicate that DOCCS' medical staff determined that a diagnosis of eczema was not warranted. Even assuming that Plaintiff did have eczema, it was not sufficiently serious that a failure to treat it could be expected to lead to substantial and unnecessary suffering, injury, or death.
Folded into Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim is a claim that the circumstances surrounding the TB vaccination caused him to suffer unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Plaintiff asserts that he was "left . . . in the same housing unit in a position to contaminate others" after refusing the TB vaccine. However, this allegation is belied by his own submissions, which indicate that he was placed on "TB Hold" based on his denial of the TB vaccination. Compl., Exs. T & V. In any event, the conditions of confinement imposed by DOCCS' TB hold policy "do not result in a serious deprivation of basic human needs, and therefore TB hold meets Eighth Amendment standards."
Moreover, Plaintiff's allegation that he was "not instruct[ed] to be placed in quarantine," Compl., ¶ 90, is not only implausible, it is too vague and conclusory to state a claim for relief under any Constitutional provision. Assuming Plaintiff actually seeks to challenge his confinement in keeplock pursuant to TB hold, he does not allege any facts other than the loss of movement afforded him while in general population and loss of privileges.
Plaintiff's complaint concerning Nurse Gorg's advice to purchase his own cosmetic supplies from commissary for his alleged eczema,
Finally, with respect to Plaintiff's claim that Nurse Adminr. Felker created a policy of denying inmates treatment for skin rashes with the exception of over-the-counter creams,
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt # 51) is denied with prejudice; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt #26) is denied with prejudice; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt #47), is granted. The Complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied.
The Clerk of the Court is requested to close this case.
