64-3 at in ¶¶ 1, 4.) Plaintiff was not familiar with Deacon prior to Deacon's arrival at Shawangunk. 64-3 at ¶¶ 7-8.)ĭeacon was assigned to Green Haven at the time of Plaintiff's April 2004 attack on Miller and was moved to Shawangunk in 2012. 64-1 at ¶ 8 69-2 at ¶ 8.) Defendant Deacon, who had been assigned to Green Haven at the time of the April 14, 2004, attack on Miller, was the A & B Housing Unit Sergeant and was responsible for overseeing SHU on the 3pm to 11pm shift at Shawangunk from approximately 2012 through late 2013. Subsequent to the April 14, 2004, assault, Plaintiff was transferred to Shawangunk where he remained in the special housing unit ("SHU") until on or about May 28, 2014. The action was settled after it had been dismissed against McClenning based upon a determination that McClenning had not acted improperly in subduing Plaintiff.
In 2005, Plaintiff commenced a civil action against a number of corrections personnel, including McClenning, alleging, inter alia, excessive force as he was escorted to the special housing unit ("SHU") following the April 14, 2004, incident.
Ease diagnostics testman trial#
1) Defendant McClenning was involved in subduing Plaintiff and testified against him in the trial on criminal charges resulting from the assault. Matt Miller by burning him with a hot oily substance and stabbing him multiple times. On April 14, 2004, while Plaintiff was being housed in Green Haven Correctional Facility ("Green Haven"), Plaintiff assaulted C.O. Incident at Green Haven Correctional Facility 69, 70.)įor reasons that follow, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety.
64.) Plaintiff has filed papers in opposition to Defendants' motion, and Defendants have filed a reply. 1 and 9.) Defendants now move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Daniel McClenning ("McClenning") at Great Meadow. § 1983, are: (1) First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Richard Deacon ("Deacon"), formerly a Lieutenant with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), working at Shawangunk Correctional Facility ("Shawangunk"), and Tracy Phillips ("Phillips"), a DOCCS Correction Officer ("C.O."), also at Shawangunk (2) First Amendment retaliation claims against Deacon, Christopher Miller ("Superintendent Miller"), Superintendent at Great Meadow Correctional Facility ("Great Meadow") Rodney Eastman ("Eastman"), First Deputy Superintendent at Great Meadow and Colin Fraser ("Fraser"), a Captain at Great Meadow, for acts that occurred at Great Meadow (3) Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against Defendants Superintendent Miller, Eastman, and Fraser occurring at Great Meadow (4) Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Superintendent Miller and Eastman at Great Meadow and (5) First Amendment retaliation and access to court claims against Defendant C.O.
Ease diagnostics testman pro#
The claims remaining in pro se Plaintiff Corey Ford's civil rights action, brought under 42 U.S.C.
0 kommentar(er)
