D istri ct Ju d g e Je d S
. R ak o ff o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r the S o u thern * D i s tr i ctof N ew Y ork, s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. 08- 0789
-pr A ba sca l v . Jarkos UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER
RUL I NGS BY SUM M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFEC T. CI TATI ON TO S UM M ARY O R D E R S F ILE D A F T E R JA N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , IS P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O TH ER P A P E R I N WH I C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y O R D E R , I N E A C H P A R A G R A P H I N WH I C H A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , A T L E A S T ON E C I T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R BE T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T S U M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W IT H T H E P A P E R IN W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I T E D O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS PU BL I CL Y ACC E S S I BL E W I T HO UT P AYM E NT OF F E E ( S UCH AS T HE DA T ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT H TTP: //W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F NO C O PY I S SERV ED B Y REA SO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E , T HE CI T ATI O N M U ST I N CL UDE RE FE RE NCE T O THAT DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C ourt of A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y ork, on the 21 dayof D ece m ber, tw o thous and ni ne. st P R E S E N T : J O H N M . W A L K E R , J R .,

R E E N A R A G G I, C i r cui tJudges , J ED S. RA K O FF, * D is tr i ct Judge
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- I SI DR O A BA SCAL, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 08- 0789- pr S T E V E JA R K O S , P sy c h o lo g ist, su e d in h is in d iv idu a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity, P . T A T U M , P s y c h o lo g is t, s u e d in h is in d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity, H .D . G R A H A M , D e p u ty S u p e ri n te n d e n t o f S e c u ri ty, s u e d i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l a n d o f f i c i a l c ap a c i ty , GAR Y H
. FI L I O N , Super i nt endent , s ued i n i ndi vi dual and o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity, C A R O L G O O D M A N , RN T h e ra p is t, s u e d in in d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity, W . L A P E , A ct i ng Super i nt endent , s ued i n i ndi vi dual and2

o f f icia l ca p a c ity , F R A N T Z M U S E , M .D . A ss ista n t P sy c h iatris t, su e d in in d iv idu a l an d o f f icia l capa ci ty , H
. E
. SM I T H , E xecut i ve D i r ect or , s ued i n in d iv id u a l a n d o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity, JO H N B U R G E , S u p e rin ten d e n t, su e d in in d iv idu a l an d o f f icia l capa ci ty , J A M E S L
. ST O N E , C om m i s s i onerof O ffi ce o f M e n tal H e a lth , su e d in in d iv idu a l an d o f f icia l capa ci ty , G L E N N S. G O O R D , C om m i s s i onerof D epartm entof C orr ect i onal Servi ces , s ued i n in d iv id u a l a n d o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity, JA M E S T . C O N W A Y , S u p e rin ten d e n t, su e d in in d iv idu a l an d o f f icia l c ap a c ity, D e fen da n ts , B R Y A N H IL T O N , P sy c h o lo g ist, su e d in h is in d iv idu a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity, M IT C H E L L L A N G B A R T , M D , s u e d in in d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity, D ef endant s -Appel lee .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : IS ID R O A B A S C A L , pro se , N ew Y or k, N ew Y ork. F O R A P P E L L E E S : A n d re w M . C u o m o , A tto rn e y G e n e ra l o f th e S tate of N ew Y ork, B arbar a D
. U nderw ood, Sol i ci t or G e n e ra l, A n d re a O se r, D e p u tyS o licito r G e n e ra l, A n d re w B . A y e rs, A ss ist a n t S o licito r G e n e ra l, A l bany , N ew Y ork.
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (L a w re n c e E . K a h n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s J a n u a ry3 0 , 2 0 0 8 j u d g me n ti s AF F I RMED
. Pl ai nt i ff I s i dr o A bas calappea l s pr o s e fr om the di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai ntchar gi ng
v a rio u s p riso n d o c to rs a n d o f f icia ls u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 w ith v io latio n s o f h isW e not e that byfai l i ng t o addr es s the i s s ue i n hi s br i ef, A bas calhas abandone d any 1 ch all en g e to th e distri ct co u rt ’s d ism issal o f his claim s ag ains t d ef en d an t L an g b art fo r fa il u re t o s e rv e , s e e Fe d
. R. Ci v . P. 4 ( m) , a n d , i n th e a l t e rn a t i v e , f o r f a i l u r e t o c o m pl yw i t h t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s N ovem ber6, 2006 or der , s ee Fed. R
. C i v. P. 16( f) ; L oSacco v. C i tyof M i ddl et ow n, 71 F. 3d 88, 92- 93 ( 2d C i r . 1995)
. A ccor di ngl y , w e do not addr es s thatrul i ng in th is o rd e r. 3 cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . “W e r evi ew de novo a di s tr i ct court ’ s di s m i s s al of a compl ai ntpur s uant t o R ul e 12(b) ( 6) , cons trui ng the com pl ai nt l i ber al l y , acc ept i ng al l fac tual al l egat i ons i n the

co m p lai n t as true , an d d raw ing all rea so n ab le in fe ren ce s in the p lai n ti ff ’s fa v o r. ” C h am b ers
v. T i m e W arner , I nc. , 282 F. 3d 147, 152 ( 2d C i r . 2002)
. W e al s o r evi ew de novo a di s tr i ct
court ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s al under 28 U
. S. C
. § 1915( e)
. See G i ano v. G oor d, 250 F. 3d 146, 1 4 9 -5 0 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). In ap p ly in g th e se sta n d a rd s, w e a ss u m e th e p a rties ’ f a m ili a rityw ith th e f a c ts a n d th e re c o rd o f

p rio r p ro c e e d in g s, w h ich w e re f e re n c e o n lya s n e c e ss a ryto e x p lain

o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f

f i rm. 1 1. Sect i on 1915( e) D i s m i s s al A b a sc a l c h a ll e n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) d is m is s a l o f h is c la im th a t d e f

e n d a n ts

w ere del i berat el y i nd i fferent t o hi s health an d safetyi n u si ng high-t ech eq uipm ent t o cau se hi m pai n and i nj ury . U nder§ 1915( e) , a courtm ays ua s pont e di s m i s s cl ai m s that“l ack[ ] an arg u ab le ba sis e ith e r in law o r i n fa ct. ” N eit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 9 0 U
. S
. 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ). W h e re th e f

a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s s u p p o rt in g a c la im d e s c ri b e f a n ta s tic o r “ d e lu s io n a l s c e n a ri o s ,” the cl ai m s ar e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed as “cl ear l ybas el es s . ” I d. at 327- 28; s ee a l s o D ent on v. H e rn a n d e z , 5 0 4 U .S . 2 5 , 3 1 -3 2 (1 9 9 2 ). O n its f a c e , A b a sc a l’s c o n ten tio n th a t d e f e n d a n ts

u se d h ig h -te c h e q u ip m e n t to c o n tro l h is th o u g h ts a n d b e h a v io r a n d re m o telyto in f lict p a in4

ca n b e c o n side red n o thing o ther th an fa n tast ic or d elus ion al. A cc o rdin g ly , the d istri ct co u rt
c o rre c tlyo rd e re d § 1 9 1 5 (e ) d ism iss a l. 2
. Ti me - Ba rr e d Cl a i ms A bas calfaul t s the di s tr i ct court ’ s di s m i s s al of var i ous cl ai m s as t i m e- barr ed, i nvoki ng the cont i nui ng vi ol at i on theory . A cl ai m ant as s ert i ng a cont i nui ng vi ol at i on “m u st a l l ege b o th th e e x iste n c e o f

a n o n g o in g p o licyo f

d isc rim in a tio n a n d s o m e n o n -tim e -b a rre d a c ts take n in f u rth era n ce o f th at po li cy . ” H arris v. C ity o f N ew Y o rk, 18 6 F
. 3 d 2 4 3 , 2 5 0 (2d C ir
. 1999) ; s ee Shomo v. C i ty of N ew Y ork, 579 F. 3d 176, 182 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( concl udi ng that

c o n tin u in g v io latio n th e o ry m a y b e ap p lied to d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e c laim s). H e re , the o n ly

conce i vabl yongoi ng pol i ci es al l eged by A bas cal ar e the pr evi ous l ydi s cus s ed us e of mi ndal t er i ng hi gh- t ech e qui pm entand s exualpr ovocat i on byfemal e s t aff m ember s . B ecaus e the form ercl ai m s l ack a n ar guabl e bas i s i n fac t , theyw er e pr oper l ydi s m i ssed re gar dl es s of

w hethertheym i ghtbe dee m ed t i m el y on a cont i nui ng vi ol at i on theory . W e nee d notdeci de

w hetherA bascal ’s sexual provoca t i on al l egati on s st at e a con t i nu i ng viol at i on becau se A b asc al h as no t all eg ed that the de fe n d an ts n am ed in his co m p lai n ts, m u ch less H il ton , w ere per s onal l yi nvol ved i n, orr es pons i bl e for , that pr ovocat i on. See W r i ghtv. Sm i th, 21 F. 3d 496, 501 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( “[P] ersona l i nvol vementof def endant s i n al l eged c ons t i tut i onal depr i vat i ons i s a pr er eq u isi te to an aw ar d of damages under§ 1983. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on
m arks om i tt ed) )
. A ccor di ngl y , A bas cal ’ s r el i ance on the cont i nui ng vi ol at i on theorydoes

n o t sa v e th e se c laim s f

ro m d ism iss a l.5

3. C ons t i tut i onal C hal l enges t o the C ondi t i ons of C onfi nement E q u a llyu n a v a ili n g is A b a sc a l’s c h a llen g e to th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is

v a rio u s c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s a g a in st H ilt o n f o r a rb it r a rilyc las sif

y in g h im a s m e n tallyill , tr a n s f e rr in g h im to C e n tr a l N e w Y o rk P s y c h ia tr ic C e n te r, a n d p la c in g h im in a “ s tr ip c e ll.” W h e th e r p u rsu e d a s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t ch a llen g e s to th e c o n d it io n s o f h is confi nemen t, F o u rt eenth A m endmentdue pr oces s cl ai m s , orFi r s tA m endmentcl ai m s for

re talia tio n , the se c laim s w e re p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d b e c a u se A b a sc a l f a iled to p lea d f

a c ts sh o w in g H ilt o n ’s p e rso n a l in v o lv e m e n t in th e c o m p lain e d -o f transfero r strip -c e ll p lac e m e n t. See W r i ghtv. Sm i th, 21 F. 3d at501. M or eover , even a s s um i ng thatA bas cal ’ s l ett er - w r i t i ng i s “pr ot ect ed s peec h” underthe Fi r s tA m en d m en t, h i s r et al i at i on cl ai m fai l s becaus e he

a lleg e s n o f

a c ts p e rm itt in g a c o n c lu sio n th a t th e c o m p lain e d -o f a c tio n s w e re “ a d v e rse ” in l i ghtof hi s ow n des cr i pt i on of hi s m ent al condi t i on i n hi s compl ai nt
. See D avi s v. G oor d, 320 F. 3d 346, 353 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( di s cus s i ng adver s e act i on r equi r ement of retal iat i on cl ai m ) ; s ee a l s o, e. g. , C om pl
. ¶ 12 ( des cr i bi ng “w aki ng vi s i ons ” and bel i ef that“mi nd w as b e in g re a d ” ). 4
. E q u a l P ro tec tio n C laim A bas calcont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n appl y i ng r at i onal bas i s r evi ew r ather than hei ght ened s crut i nyt o hi s equalpr ot ect i on cl ai m s bas ed on hi s s t atus as a M ar i el C uban. T h e p o in t m eri t s l i tt l e dis cussi on . A bascal has not al l eged any fact s that cou l d s up po rt a fi n d ing o f di s par at e tr eatm ent , m uch l es s i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on, bas ed on hi s s t atus as a M ar i el C uban. A ccor di ngl y , hi s equalpr ot ect i on cl ai m w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed.6

5. V enue W e nee d nother e dec i de w hether the di s tr i ct court s houl d have tr ans ferr ed r atherthan di s m i s s ed A bas cal ’ s cl ai m s ar i s i ng out of event s occurr i ng i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof N ew York
. A tr a n s f

e r n o w wou l d b e d u p l i c a t i v e b e c a u s e Aba s c a l h a s a l r e a d y c o mme n c ed an act i on i n the W est ern D i stri ct against defe nd ant C on w ay and other s fo r the al l eged w rongs. 6. C oncl us i on W e h av e c o ns i der ed A bas cal ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s and concl ude th at th ey are
w ith o u t m e ri t. A c c o rd in g ly, w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt
. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt
B y :