T he H onor abl e J

. G ar van M urt ha, Seni or J udge of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our t f or t he D i s t r i ct of * V er m ont , s i t t i ng by des i gn at i on. 1 09- 2897- pr C ol e v. Fi s cher

UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to a summ ary order filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a d oc um en t f

il edwi thth is c ou r t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

an el ect r on ic da ta ba se (

wi thth e n ot at io n " su m m ar y o r de r ") . A p ar ty

ci ti ng a su m m ar

y o r de r must serve a copy of iton any part y not r epresented by cou nsel.
Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at ric k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, on th e twenty-seventhday of May, two thou sand and ten.
PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES , R O BERT A. K

A T ZMA NN , Circuit Jud ges , J. GA R V A N M UR T HA ,

District Judge .*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x R ONNI E C O LE , Pl

aint iff -A ppella nt ,

v. No. 09-2897-pr

Commissioner B R I A N F I S CHER , R O BERT E RCOLE , G .H .C.F ., K EV I N L A P O RTO , G.H.C.F., P. T R OWB R I DGE , G .H .C.F ., G. L EHO YS KI , G.H.C.F., Direc tor D ONA L D S ELS KY , Sp ecial Ho us in g I nm ate Di s cip lin ary P r ogr am, N E W Y O RK S TATE D EPAR TM EN T O F C O RRECT I O NAL S ER VI CES , J OHN D. H ALI CKI , Inmate Disciplinary Program,

Defenda nts-App ellees

.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x F OR P LAIN TIF F
- AP P ELLAN T: Ron ni e Col e, pro se, N Y.
FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELL EES: Rob er t C. Wies z, As s is tan t S ol ici to r Gen er al (A nd r ew M . Cu om o, At to r ney Gen er al, B ar bar a D. Un der

woo d, So lic it or

Gen er al, on the brief ), State of New Y ork, Off

ice of the At to r ney Gen er al, New

Yor k, N Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Southern Dis trict of New Yor k ( B ar bar a S. J on es , Judge

).
UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJU DG ED , AN D D ECR EED tha t th e j ud gm en t of the di stri ctco urtis AFFIRMED in part (insof ar as it dismis sed (1) plaintiff’s clai ms that defendants f iled false reports, (2) plaintiff’s claims that defendants were del iberately indifferent to his serious medica l needs, (3) plaintiff’s dis ability discrimination claims, (4) plaintiff’s r acia l and religi ous dis crimination cla ims against all defenda nts
exce pt Lehoyski, and (5) plaintiff’s excessive force claims aga inst all defendants exce pt Lehoyski ); VAC ATED inpar t (

in s of ar as it di s mi s s ed p lai nt

if f’ s clai ms agai ns t L eho ys ki f or (1 ) u s in g ex ces s ive force and (2) discriminating aga inst plaintiff on the basis of r ace and religion); andth e cau s e is REMA NDED for f

urther pr ocee dings consist ent with this order.
Pl ain ti ff -a pp ell ant Ron ni e Col e ( “pl ain ti ff

” or “Col e”) , p r oce edi ng pro se, appea ls fr om the Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s or der

gr ant in g di s mi s s al o f his ame nd ed 4 2 U. S.C. § 19 83 c om pl ain t, andan o r der denying his request

for leave to file a second amende d complaint. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the f actual andpr oce du r al his to ry of th e cas e.
We r evi ew de novo

a Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s di s mi s s al f

or fa ilu r e t o s tat e a cl aim , see

Fed. R. C iv. P. 12( b) (6 ), as s umin g all

well -p lead ed, no nco ncl us or y f actual all egat io ns inth e co mp lai nt

to be tr ue, see As hcr o ft v. I qbal , 12 9 S. Ct. 193 7, 1 949 -5 0 ( 200 9) ; Sele v

an v . N .Y. T hr uwa y Aut h. , 58 4 F .3d82, 88 (

2d Cir. 2009).
We r evi ew the d eni al o f amo ti onfo r leav e t o am endth e co mp lai nt fo r abu s e of di s cr et io n. Gr ee n v . M att ing ly , 585 F.3d 97, 104 (2d Cir. 2009). Rule 15(a) of the Federal R ules of Civil Procedure instructs that leave to a mend should be “freely given.” Fed. R . Civ. P. 15(a). Moreover, “[a] pro se com pl ain t i s to be r ead l

ib er ally” an d “[c]e r tai nly the c ou r t s ho ul d n ot di s mi s s witho ut

gr ant in g le ave to ame ndat l eas t o nce whe n a l ib er al r eadi ng o f the c om pl ain t g ive s any i ndicat

io n that a val idclai m might be s tat ed. ” Go mez

v. US AAFed. Sav. B ank , 17 1 F .3d794 , 79 5 ( 2dCir . 19 99) (q

uo ti ng Br anum3

v. Clark , 927 F.2d 698, 70 5 (2d Cir. 1991)).

Her e, anin dep end ent

r evi ew o f the r eco r d an d r elev ant cas e law r eveals th at the D is tr

ict Cou r t p r op erly dis mi s s ed m os t o f p lai nt if f’ s clai ms andpr op erly d eni ed his r equ es t f or leav e t o f ile a second amende d complaint. E xcept a s noted below, we affirm the judgment of the Dis trict Court fo r s ub s tan ti ally the r eas on s s tat ed i n i ts th or ough o r der s ent er ed o n M ay 29 , 20 09. See Cole v. Fischer , No. 07 Cv . 11096, 20 09 WL 15146 99 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2009) ( Cole I

) (di s mi s s in g pl ain ti ff

’s clai ms); Cole v. Fischer

, No. 07 Cv . 11096, 20 09 WL 15146 91 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2009) ( Cole II

) (denying pla intiff’s request for leav e to amend). W e conc lude, howe ver, that the Distr ict Court
er re d i n tw o re spe ct s.
Firs t, the Distr

ict Court erred when it conc luded that C ole’s exce ss ive force cla im did not rise to the leve l of an Eighth Amendment viola tion. “The Eighth Ame ndment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments including the unne cessary and wa nton infliction of pai n. ” Griffin v. Crip

pen , 19 3 F .3d89, 91 (

2dCir . 19 99) (c it ati onandin te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks omitted). For

exce ss ive force cla ims, “the core judicia l inquiry is . . . whether force wa s applied in a goo d- faith ef

fo r t t o m ain tai n o r

r es to r e di s cip lin e, o r

mal ici ou s ly an d s adi s ti cally t o cau s e harm. ” Hud so n v . M cM ill ian , 5 03 U. S. 1, 6-7 (1 99 2) . Th e m a li ci ou s use of f orc e t o c a use ha rm c on sti tut es a per se Eigh thAme nd men t v io lat io n r egar dl es s of

whe th er th er e is a s ignif

ican t i nj ur y. See Bly den v. Mancusi , 18 6 F .3d252 , 26 3 (

2dCir . 19 99) (c it ati onomit te d) ; see also Wright v. Goord , 55 4 F .3d255 , 27 0 (2d Cir. 2009). Howe ver, the prohibition aga inst cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to th e de min imis use of for ce, provided tha t such for ce “i s not of a sort r epugna nt to the conscience of
man kin d. ” See Basker

ville v. M ulvaney , 41 1 F .3d45, 48 (

2dCir . 20 05) (i nt er nal

qu ot ati onmar ks omitted). In his amended complai nt, Cole a llege d that he had refused to respond t o the offer of Cor r ect io n O ff icer Le ho ys ki ( “L eho ys ki”) o f acorr up t “ deal ”; that Le ho ys ki h ad thendi r ect ed Co le to fo llo w hi m s om ewh er e els e; an d that , as Col e at te mp te d t o p ick up hi s clo thin g, L eho ys ki h ad hit him in the face and used racia lly a nd religiously derogatory la nguage towards him. Although the Distr ict Court correctly noted that C ole did not all ege tha t he had suffered any injuries as a result of th e hi tt in g, the D is tr

ict Cou r t e r r ed i n f

in di ng that

th er e was no thin g t o s ugg es t that th e f or ce was app lie d m ali cio us ly, or

fo r any r eas onother

th an t o m ain tai n dis cip lin e andor der inth e f acil it y. As we ha ve expl ained, “the absence of any significant injury . . . does not end the Eighth A mendment inquiry, for our

standards of

dece ncy a re violated e ven in the a bsence of such injury if the def end ant ’s us e of

fo r ce was mal

ici ou s or s adi s ti c.” Wri

gh t , 554 F.3d at 270. Assuming the facts all egedinCol e’s ame nd ed c om pl ain t ar e tr ue, as we ar e r equ ir ed t o o n a m ot

io n t o dis mi s s , it

is po s s ib le t o i nf

er th at L eho ys ki’ s us e of

fo r ce was mal

ici ou s inlig

ht of Col e’s all egat

io ns th at Le ho ys ki s im ul tan eou s ly m ade r acial ly an d r eligio us ly d er oga to ry r ema r ks , an d that th e f or ce was used just aft er he had turned down a n offer of a corrupt deal. A ccordingly , we c onclude tha t theW e a ff irm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istr ic t C o u r t in so fa r a s it d ism iss e d a n y c la im o f d isc r im in a tio n o n th e b a sis 1 of di s abi l i t y. U nl i ke t he a l l eg ed com m ent s ab out C ol e’ s r ace an d re l i gi on, t he a l l eg ed com m ent ab out C ol e wear i ng an adul t di ape r was not ac com pan i ed by a ny p hys i cal ab us e a nd t her ef or e di d not r i s e t o t he l evel of a cons t i t ut i ona l
v io la tio n . S ee P u rc ell

, 790 F. 2d at 265. 4 Di stri ctC ou rt e rre d i n d ism issi ng pl ain ti ff’ s E ighth Am en dm en t c la im for e xc essi ve forc e a ga in st Le ho ys ki.
We a lso conclude that the District Court erred in dismiss ing plai ntiff’s Fourt eenth Amendment cl aims aga inst L ehoyski for discr imination on the ba sis of race and relig ion. The Di s tr ict Cou r t e xp lai nedth at “ [t

]h e only alleg ati on s inth e Am end ed Co mp lai nt th at r elat e t o thi s clai m are that . . . Lehoyski used a rac ial e pithet, made a derogatory comment about Muslims, and
mo ckedCol e f

or wear in g anadult

di aper ” an d that

s uch“[ v] er bal har as s men t an d n ame call in g, abs ent ph ys ical in ju ry, ar e no t c on s ti tu ti on al v io lat io ns cog ni zabl e un der

Sect io n 1 983 .” Cole I

, 20 09 WL 1514699 , at *5. A lthough verbal ha rass ment, standing alone , does not amount to a
con s ti tu ti on al d epr

iva ti on , se e P

ur cell v . Co ug hli n , 79 0 F .2d263 , 26 5 (

2dCir . 19 86) (h ol di ng that nam ecall in g wi th ou t “ any a pp r ecia bl e in ju ry” didno t v io lat e in mat e’s con s ti tu ti on al r igh ts), pl ain ti ff

’s
ame nd ed c om pl ain t alleg ed that Le ho ys ki b ecam e phys ically ab us ive andhi t p lai nt if f i n the f ace while using rac ial e pithets and referr ing to plaintiff’s religion. And al though plaintiff does not exp lic it ly alleg e that

he s uf fe r ed any in ju ry, we may

lib er ally co ns true alleg ati on s abo ut bei ng s truck inth e f ace as s uf fi cien tly s tat

in g an“ap pr ecia bl e in ju ry.” Se e i d. ; cf . S eal ed P lai nti ff v . S eal ed D ef en dant , 53 7 F. 3d 18 5, 19 1 (2d C ir. 20 08 ) (e xp la in in g t ha t “ wh en apl ain ti ff p roc ee ds pro se, a co ur t i s ob lig ed to con s true his pl eadi ngs lib er ally” an d that “[ t] hi s is par ti cul arly s o wh en the pro se pl ain ti ff all eges th at [ hi s ] ci vil r igh ts hav e be en v

io lat ed” (c it ati on s andalt er ati on s om it te d) ). Whenth e verbal har as s men t an d s im ul tan eou s ph ys ical abu s e all egedinth e am end ed c om pl ain t ar e co ns id er ed to gether , we h ave l

it tl e t r ou bl e co ncl udin g that pl ain ti ff ’s all egat io ns wer e s uf

fi cien t t o s tat e a § 1 983 clai m for dis crimination on the basis of race and relig ion. 1
Acco r di ngl

y, we vacat e the D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s ju dgm ent

only i ns of

ar as it di s mi s s ed p lai nt

if f’ s clai ms against Lehoyski for (1) using excessive force in violation of plai ntiff’s Eighth Ame ndment rights and (2) dis criminating a gainst plaintiff on the basis of r ace and religion i n violation of pl ain ti ff’ s Fou rte en th A me nd me nt rights.
CONCLUSI ON
Fo r th e f or ego in g r eas on s , we AF F IRM th e ju dgm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i ns of

ar as it di s mi s s ed ( 1) pl ain ti ff

’s clai ms th at d ef

end ant s filedfals e r epo r ts , ( 2) pl ain ti ff

’s clai ms th at defendants were del iberately indifferent to his serious medica l needs, (3) plaintiff’s dis ability discrimination claims, (4) plaintiff’s r acia l and religi ous dis crimination cla ims against all defenda nts5

exce pt Le ho ys ki, and(5 ) p lai nt

if f’ s exce s s ive fo r ce cl aim s agai ns t all d ef end ant s exce pt

Le ho ys ki. We VACAT E the judgment of the Distr ict Court only insofar as it dismiss ed plai ntiff’s clai ms aga inst L ehoyski for (1) us ing exc essive for ce in vi olation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights and(2) dis cr

im in ati ng again s t p lai nt

if f o n the b as is of

r ace an d r eligio n i n v

io lat io n o f p lai nt

if f’ s Fou rte en th A me nd me nt rights.
We REMA

ND the cause for further proceedings consistent with this order.

FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court