09- 0690
- pr

Kornegay v. JohnDoe 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 S UM M ARY OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I 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 , I S 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 L OCAL RUL E 3 2 . 1 AND FE DE RAL RUL E OF AP PE LLATE PROCEDUR E 3 2 . 1 . W HEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D OC U M E N T F I L E D W I T H T HI S C OU R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE FE DE RAL AP PE NDI X OR AN E L E CT RONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I T H THE NOTA T I ON “ S UM M ARY OR D E R ” ) . A P A R T Y C I T I N G A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C OP Y OF I T ON A N Y P A R T Y N OT R EPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second C i r cui t , hel d atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r ee t , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 30 dayof M ar ch, tw o thous and t en. th P RE S E NT : RO BE RT D. S AC K,

R E E N A R A G G I, PETE R W
. HA LL, C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- L E ON KORNE GAY,

P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 09- 0690- pr J O H N D O E, ETC
. CO RR EC TI O N A L O FFI CE RS, AN Y SU PERVI SORY PERS ON NEL SUFFOLK CO UNT Y, CE NT RA L S UF F OL K M E DI CA L HO SP I TAL, CO UN TY O F S UFFOLK , SUFF OLK CO UN TY SH ERI FF ’ S DEPARTM ENT, S UF F OL K C OUNT Y S HE RI F F , C. O. J OHN F I NOC CH I AR O, S GT
. RO BE RT AI T KE N, C. O. J AM E S KI E RA N, C. O. WI L L I AM S HI P M AN, L T
. J OHN NO L AN, S GT
. CH RI S T OP HE R B L AC K, S GT. BERNARD CON W AY, C. O. M ARK M AGNAN I , C. O. P AUL E NGE L HAR DT , C. O. L OUI S VI S CU S I , S GT
. M AR CI NOWS KI , C. O. J OHN UR BA NC I K, C. O. RA L P H DANI E L S S E N,

D ef endant s -Appel l ees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --2

A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : L E O N K O R N E G A Y , pro se , D eerPar k, N ew Y ork. AP P E AR I NG F OR AP P E L L E E S : B R IA N C
. M IT C H E L L , A ss ista n t C o u n ty A t t orney , C ountyof Suffol k, H auppauge , N ew Y ork. A p p ea l from th e U n ite d S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (S a n d ra J . F e u e rs te in , 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 F e b ru a ry9 , 2 0 0 9 j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED
. L eon K ornegay , pr o s e, appea l s a j udgm ent i n favor of defe ndant s on thi s act i on under 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983 al l egi ng pr i nci pal l ythatcorr ect i ons offi ce rs s u bject ed hi m t o exce s s i ve f o rc e . A lth o u g h K o rn e g a y ’s f a ilu re to sta te th e b a sis f o r h is a p p e a l ar g u a b lyw a rra n ts
a f f i r ma n c e , s e e Ot e r o v . Br i d g e p o r tHo u s i n g Au th
. , 2 9 7 F
. 3 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 4 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) , we
cons true the appe al as chal l engi ng the gr antof def endant s ’ pr e- ver di ctm ot i on forj udgm ent
as a mat t er of l aw under Fed. R
. C i v. P. 50( a)
. Such a mot i on m aybe gr ant ed onl yw her e “a

r eas onabl e j urycoul d r eac h but one concl us i on. ” H annex C orp. v. G M I , I nc. , 140 F. 3d 194, 203 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )
. W e r e v i e w t h e g r a n to f a Rul e 50

m o t i o n d e n o v o , v i e w i n g th e e v i d e n c e i n th e l i g h tm o s tf a v o r a b l e t o th e n o n - m o v i n g p a r ty. S e e T u c c i o v . M a r c o n i , 5 8 9 F
. 3 d 5 3 8 , 5 4 0
- 4 1 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. I n a p p l y i n g th i s s t a n d a r d , we
as s um e fa m i l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory , w hi ch w e r eferen ce o n lyas
n e c e s s a ryt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. I ti s w ell s ett l ed that“per s onal i nvol vementof def endant s i n al l eged c ons t i tut i onal3

depr i vat i ons i s a pr er equi s i t e t o an aw ar d of damages und er § 1983. ” Far i d v. E l l en, 593 F. 3d 233, 249 ( 2d C i r . 2010) (i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. T o be s ur e, the “ge ner al p rin c ip le o f

to rt law th a t a to rt v ictim w h o c a n n o t id e n tify th e to rtf e a so r ca n n o t b rin g su it”

m aybe “r el axed .
. . i n act i ons br oughtbypr o se li ti g an ts , ” “pa r t i cul ar l y. . . w her e the pl ai nt i ff i s i ncar cer at ed. ” V al ent i n v. D i nki ns , 121 F. 3d 72, 75 ( 2d C i r . 19 9 7 ) (i n t ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. K ornegayi s n o lon g er i ncar cer at ed, how ever , and he w as perm i t t ed d isc o v e ry . N e v e rth e les s , in h is o w n sw o rn tes tim o n yb e f o re th e ju ry , K o rn e g a yf a iled to attri b u te sp ec ifi c action s to any ind ividu al d ef en d an t. E v en if w e w ere to tr ea t K o rne g ay ’s
o p e n in g s ta te m e n t a s e v id e n c e , w h ich w e d o n o t, i t se rv e s o n lyf u rth e r to ill u stra te h is in a b ili tyto d e m o n stra te w h ich , if a n y , o f th e d e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in th e c h a llen g e d c o n d u c t. T hus , w e det ectno err ori n the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s concl us i on thatK ornegayfai l ed t o pr es ent evi dence s uffi ci entt o perm i t a r eas onabl e j ur or t o fi nd, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , thathe had s ati sfied h is “ bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thats om ethi ng w as done t o [hi m ] and by

w h o m itw as d o n e.” T ri al T r. at 30 (em p h asis su p p li ed ). W e have cons i der ed K ornegay ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l , and theyar e w i thout

m e ri t. A c c o rd in g ly, th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rtis A F F IR M E D
. 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