Cook v. Sutherland

S.D. New York

Cook v. Sutherland

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 14, 2020·No. 7:19-cv-02780·Unknown

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT

Cook vy. Suterland et al 19-cv-2780 (NSR)

The Court reviewed Defendants’ attached pre-motion letter, dated September 17, 2019 (ECF No. 15). The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's attached responses, filed on October 2, 2019 (ECF No. 17), October 24, 2019 (ECF No. 18), and December 2, 2019 (ECF No. 19.) Due to Plaintiffs incarceration, the Court waives the pre-motion conference requirement and grants Defendants leave to file their motion to dismiss with the following briefing schedule: Defendants’ moving papers are to be served (not filed) on February 13, 2020; Plaintiffs opposition is to be served (not filed) on March 16, 2020; Defendants’ reply is to be served on March 20, 2020. Defendants’ counsel is directed to file all motion documents, including Plaintiff's opposition, on the reply date, March 20, 2020. The parties shall provide two copies of their respective documents to chambers as the documents are served. Plaintiffs attached motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos, 20 and 21) are premature, and are therefore DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings after sufficient discovery has occurred. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos, 15, 20, and 21. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at Plaintiff's last address listed on ECF and to show proof of service on the docket.

Dated: January 14, 2020 White Plains, NY

SOORDERED.

Nelson S. Roman, U.S.D.J.

DOCUMENT SSLECTROMICALLY BYLEC 4 ELE mahiw [2026

WAG FULTON EVE INIEN bee NAMIAAD TERT ER EN POINTE ON et NEON Ew eo SONA EO ELD Orange County COUNTY ATTORNEY ie ee Notes) Langdon C, Chapman ee Orange County Attorney STEVEN M. NEUHAUS County Executive Orange County Government Center 255-275 Main Street Goshen, New York 10924 Family Law Unit Sharon Worthy-Spiegl Tiffany N. Gagliano Deputy County Attorney Chief Assistant County □□□□□□□□ Family Law & Juvenile Justice Municipal Law Unit TEL: (845) 291-3150 TEL: (845) 291-2650 FAX; (845) 378-2374 FAX: (845) 360-9161

September 17, 2019 Via ECF Hon. Nelson S. Roman United States District Judge United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Kevin Cook v. Officer Suterland, et al., Docket No.; 7:19-cv-02780 (NSR) Dear Judge Roman: Please be advised that we are the attorneys representing Officer Sutherland, Sheriff Carl DuBois and Officer DeWitt (hereinafter collectively the “County Defendants”) in the above matter!, We write pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rules to request a pre-motion conference for purposes of obtaining the Court’s permission to file a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety as against the County Defendants on the grounds specified below, inter alia.

Plaintiff's complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. §1983, specifying constitutional violations under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, alleges that he was subjected to verbal harassment by Officer Sutherland. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that during a pat down of his person, Officer DeWitt kept the palm of his hand on his backside for approximately 3 minutes while Officer Sutherland watched. “I]t is well-settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.” Byng v. Wright, (No. 09 Civ. 9924 (PKC) (JCF)), 2012 WL 967430 at * 13 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2012) (quoting Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 Qd Cir. 1994)), “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (emphasis added). An official may not be held liable simply because he or she holds a position of authority. Black v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1996). 1 Officer Sutherland incorrectly named in the caption as Officer Suterland. *Service of Process by FAX Is not accepted

NAAQS FT TMU VO NNN We SAM ed OE FON NM FE EE BN RN EE Ee ees

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT

Cook vy. Suterland et al 19-cv-2780 (NSR)

The Court reviewed Defendants’ attached pre-motion letter, dated September 17, 2019 (ECF No. 15). The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's attached responses, filed on October 2, 2019 (ECF No. 17), October 24, 2019 (ECF No. 18), and December 2, 2019 (ECF No. 19.) Due to Plaintiffs incarceration, the Court waives the pre-motion conference requirement and grants Defendants leave to file their motion to dismiss with the following briefing schedule: Defendants’ moving papers are to be served (not filed) on February 13, 2020; Plaintiffs opposition is to be served (not filed) on March 16, 2020; Defendants’ reply is to be served on March 20, 2020. Defendants’ counsel is directed to file all motion documents, including Plaintiff's opposition, on the reply date, March 20, 2020. The parties shall provide two copies of their respective documents to chambers as the documents are served. Plaintiffs attached motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos, 20 and 21) are premature, and are therefore DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings after sufficient discovery has occurred. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos, 15, 20, and 21. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at Plaintiff's last address listed on ECF and to show proof of service on the docket.

Dated: January 14, 2020 White Plains, NY

SOORDERED.

Nelson S. Roman, U.S.D.J.

DOCUMENT SSLECTROMICALLY BYLEC 4 ELE mahiw [2026

WAG FULTON EVE INIEN bee NAMIAAD TERT ER EN POINTE ON et NEON Ew eo SONA EO ELD Orange County COUNTY ATTORNEY ie ee Notes) Langdon C, Chapman ee Orange County Attorney STEVEN M. NEUHAUS County Executive Orange County Government Center 255-275 Main Street Goshen, New York 10924 Family Law Unit Sharon Worthy-Spiegl Tiffany N. Gagliano Deputy County Attorney Chief Assistant County □□□□□□□□ Family Law & Juvenile Justice Municipal Law Unit TEL: (845) 291-3150 TEL: (845) 291-2650 FAX; (845) 378-2374 FAX: (845) 360-9161

September 17, 2019 Via ECF Hon. Nelson S. Roman United States District Judge United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Kevin Cook v. Officer Suterland, et al., Docket No.; 7:19-cv-02780 (NSR) Dear Judge Roman: Please be advised that we are the attorneys representing Officer Sutherland, Sheriff Carl DuBois and Officer DeWitt (hereinafter collectively the “County Defendants”) in the above matter!, We write pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rules to request a pre-motion conference for purposes of obtaining the Court’s permission to file a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety as against the County Defendants on the grounds specified below, inter alia.

Plaintiff's complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. §1983, specifying constitutional violations under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, alleges that he was subjected to verbal harassment by Officer Sutherland. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that during a pat down of his person, Officer DeWitt kept the palm of his hand on his backside for approximately 3 minutes while Officer Sutherland watched. “I]t is well-settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.” Byng v. Wright, (No. 09 Civ. 9924 (PKC) (JCF)), 2012 WL 967430 at * 13 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2012) (quoting Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 Qd Cir. 1994)), “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (emphasis added). An official may not be held liable simply because he or she holds a position of authority. Black v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1996). 1 Officer Sutherland incorrectly named in the caption as Officer Suterland. *Service of Process by FAX Is not accepted

NAAQS FT TMU VO NNN We SAM ed OE FON NM FE EE BN RN EE Ee ees

Specifically, Plaintiffs complaint makes no allegations regarding Defendant DuBois and his personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations against Plaintiff, Defendant DuBois’ mere position as Sheriff of Orange County, with nothing more, is insufficient to allege a §1983 action. Plaintiffs also complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim for a violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment2, Patterson v. Ponte, 16-cv-3156 (PAE)(JCF); 2017WL1194489 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2017). Plaintiff's allegations of a pat down of his person, which he admits was incidental to a cell search, fails to allege acts by prison officials which are objectively, sufficiently serious, without a legitimate penological purpose, and “undertaken to arouse or gratify the officer or humiliate the inmate.” Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252, 257-58 (2d Cir. 2015); see also Boddie v. Schneider, 105 F.3d 857, 861 (2d Cir. 1997) (abuse that is “severe or repetitive” can be objectively, sufficiently serious conduct), Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 29- 35 (2d Cir, 2017) (more lenient standard applies to pre-trial detainees when assessing the subjective prong). Plaintiffs claim of one incident wherein he experienced no violence, injury or humiliation fail to meet the standard. See McCarroll v, Matteau, 2010 WL 2346327, *4-5 (N.D.N.Y., May 17, 2010) (insufficient where prison official touched his penis during a pat down); see also Garcia v. Watts, 2009 WL 2777085, *6-7 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2009) (defendant grabbed plaintiffs buttocks on two occasions and rubbed his penis against plaintiffs buttocks insufficient); Williams v. Keane, 1997 WL 527677, *9-11 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 1997) (insufficient where defendant put his hand down plaintiffs pants and fondled plaintiff's testicles). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a violation under the Fourth Amendment to establish a § 1983 claim as he had no subjective expectation of bodily privacy in a clothed pat frisk search of his person in a correctional setting. Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege that CO DeWitt had no sufficient justification to conduct a pat frisk of his person. In fact, Plaintiff readily concedes that the pat down was done in connection with fight at the facility, Covino □□ Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir, 1992) (routine searches of inmates, including strip searches, have long been accepted as not violative of the Fourth Amendment); see also Eng v. Therrien, 2008 WL 141794, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) (allegations of improper pat frisks, even if true, do not violate the Fourth Amendment). Sufficient justification requires an analysis of, (1) the scope of the particular intrusion; (2) the manner in which it was conducted; (3) the justification for initiating it; and (4) the place in which it was conducted.” Harris v. Miller, 818 F.3d 49, 58 (2d Cir, 2016), see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979). Defendant DeWitts’s pat frisk as alleged by Plaintiff, which was conducted outside of his cell and for a specific penological purpose over Plaintiffs clothing was not inherently intrusive and was justified. Lastly, Plaintiffs’ complaint is barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”). The PLRA states that “[n]Jo action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C § 1997e(a). “Moreover, a claim must be completely exhausted prior to

2 At the time of the alleged incident in the complaint, Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee. *Service of Process by FAX Is not accepted

NACA FD Na VN he NOT EN te SE PORE AN EP et EN NE ee OND

commencing suit. It is insufficient to take only limited steps towards exhaustion before commencing suit, or even to exhaust a claim entirely during the pendency of the case.” Schwartz v, Dennison, 518 F.Supp.2d 560, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). However, as is plainly evident from the face of the Complaint — and the grievances Plaintiff filed with the Court that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims against the County Defendants prior to commencing this action as mandated by the PLRA. In fact, four of the five grievances Plaintiff filed with this Court were filed after the complaint was filed and therefore could not have been in compliance with the PLRA. □ Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

- Resp¢ctfully yours,

Carol @YPrerce Chief Assistant County Attorney

Kevin Cook, Plaintiff Pro Se . Orange County Correctional Facility 110 Wells Farm Road Goshen, New York 10924

*Service of Process by FAX is not accepted

ae gag yp og Bo Bl Re oh. Ro | ee Ag | a: & oko: {Aa | PS tas | □□ aS □ 38 G2k eS8gey wee eRe So og 2 Shee mp Bis ee □□ ey ot i. >| 3 | Cl ao | i Ne j me SF & es 8 Du Ca S59 fee SPeSZG □ □□ ey a A Sess iS Ag | die Son Eotht JAS: |Sal Pole Zr oat A 2 322 Sen geen Bre eek Olas □□ 2 0 Cie Web alir go ets SE Zod 9S Sic Sue ‘Obama Fal~ Le □□□ J) |S eae Soseu eds 2523 Le AL □□ 2G eS Boy eG ee be a TaD ets: Ba WS) oe Sz 4 git tizsey West jbc4 J 43 lth tSze 5580 8 Bes 5 3G □ 3 ESHe Is oS Serege 27 Se ge jgGe SoS ¢ og ees a gaeeees Mosgssss □ ES Sas Eeee® GPeE= Pete SEP MeL □□□ EG fe

i : ! : { \ i ' : . : \ : : Le pb emp EE a GEE GE GE pee EL LB □□ @ □□ pF Ie RRR Se Sl te Lg | □□□ TRS aot! □□□ Ls Trad) SL oS ater ene op eee □□□ og ag Saayie □□□ □□ Seas □□ 8 □□□ he etsy Feen 4 1 Bowe & Ay 7 2 LABS ind esol □□ a St A 20459 SOB ee □□ [oO ; i ro | | eS Ae | { iO eat □□□□ Og £aeaes 6 Salsa □□□□ Lyd Set yeh estseosh kee & | | pos)! : | : Ly met | ati mene | ° □□□ ae aes s2er 8 saa □□□ NS So$E yIVeadar | 2s & □ □□ ae] Tee 2 a Bs 32 beak hy BES Eects 52) ve Biss 5 52 ihe SES Seeds Soe Suu Hysyas pveg erg eae giwegs □□□ Be SSS5 onsen Cassie AT SERN NORE EGEO ost ARAN SE po be EE ee pp Pe PPP bpp

SE | | 85S Du ER □□□ Su bu SSsisst 25 S285 SS. Sa Gh, gaa sage ges Zepae 2g 4 WEFOGZSIURS KESt □□□ ES □□□ feta □□□ RSP EZ Gy Seen se 1 □ OF. seo FIG aTMS Ba eas | qoee Sy Bay 32 □□ Ba Bee OPE gs ease! Ee dei rsaz§. out asgay □□□ □□ □□ G8 Fy aS ah St □□ 2eneg euepo aig ten atte □ pea Rgurtey □□□□ ake : DOS: Ze I= Sas obsess AOe |- TAt¥ la ES Ar 2 a SP ba 8 aa OEE IESE eh □□ be be pa

. : \ i od : : : oj | : : pp bb Pad gb pe be sd) QR, 8) Bie | 2 SS Go eke oy JG Rigs xe |: QZ Le | at - R gos acs i OS i Ss : bo 2776 OT wy ig gt SSae S| srept ses re VIS Bo oo per 4a | At 2 18 BES « □ = CIRO fete gy Vase See at tire y Dem Fe yh SEENZ gs BUS CIE Rea a a (fi LO; Seg Ss re Mra □ AR ees Pgs oat □ ee oN ealtpse tbe ys 2 6 PD Ot! 12. Fr |? 24 ge. seegs* sae. ESS Sa Le AH ERT GA |e sa 6 □□ □□ REESE yo BHO See bseI desc wets Es □□□ □□ □□□ STE □□ Teta J 394 ook S29 S255 Sle BIssy OLS Pes ee □□□

Do □□ Pp Ed 4 g id wg BH lar 4 2p |g fee EPs 2 |

Se. Alm (0 god Bb Be

poy Wi a ipo! □ r | □□□ & Sw : ay 302 keg geaehe 7s ore

a 28 | > | 2] 7 ! | J O Te 3 22 □□ S Salo 2 wt eylg a yy Sgeg £8 □

zagseecceNy gag See

BE ease Wade reag Sy id seas ei | yoelg □□□ & □□ J 5 SS □□ | EL Set Soe IA 3 2 et Ts 3 Tes Poet ulaaug styl ey ore Oe a. a) J LL | Vag Bde BIST ES □□

we feeb Sees eeape Co gatos Jgue Vesa TE eats go BS HEFOSH EWEN AS 5 RM tes PLT bea

-

.

. □

coll te UC oad a SBOE Post Sy (IMO) OK ON ay age □ 4 . SMOPUS spgoswngy pot pat Nake titres pn pongo RAGES says pam Od, ————~yq) ——___ ___ aweN md v5n ys naggos | 0 hobl ave 30%) Waa ea . wr eee □ fed STORE AE OE $260 HAN TUSUEOD eens. = Eas ee asa Ley wer AunoD abuelo Smeg) DFOIMN STOVE

_Kevalt ‘ook oes 1 19BO amened 25 VEC □□ Offices Guforland, ef al.y —___=_Cap\ Sent 12 boaye Docket vy | t-cy-Aren(vsay Contry AYA pwvey oo ee Tpebexia Hon, Melson S. fomén wal een py Ste d St tes Deteict Judge te bo dtadge ____ | =o ~ : tj? □ Aeason: □□ □□□ hes S\apon W, Spieq| us to judge to dismiss Conlon. ee

DlaWter was suloyocted vetlpal and phy sical □□ hatrasoment by Nave □□□ Meet Suter \and. Savd and Ww aving his Wand where Plctun At

Pdindie® neversaid OPPicox Suter \and) —__ □□ □□□ pub. Wis Mand on. pidint eR cube Not: is a Ganplate Ne ond a_ □

3. OPicer Dewalt hed no sudeiient: | □ to-.a pat Qoiele which wos — than thet be cause plainest was bin —___ toleay out @ cell +0 ot tip ec Seanely Ne di a and was Gbriped search after he whey) aired ow homate) □ pianist of each bui-taks gnd cecheg His)

net hy vt 4 BOW os sits to. Sis ‘pl : a Laare ly 44, .

DeWitte getions were Ror sole penoleqies| I] DUIMSE alouSe. ooemehe and abate mse iy Rs vid OPO Yc To APICES Cawped \g

Lt. hey. AS | nit Auret ication NO. wen I.

wiSu\- a ap oY71 pi aur Pt. When laws EO ue! SS 4

NeW. SO DO t4trip, J doy Med OWNSG » _ 5 Viontier did ovkidust Comedies aud trig +p dae get the Iegue with

more Complamed. tne worst ir got B-bsld Clarice □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Vion Worker alpoutits a Courle Of Ties: is Gohon, for X Ad were an ANYONE PLM Wy oO. ond wrih6ur 4 arievance Loew b “ote acon awd Awe onecaykes \s Wo elect an Op acing problem. A. The ac+ DPR col hy Wit domihed Lupo the @ex Dlawtrph SvV\_ yo WA ch Uyd Qt Ne Hesd woe Saul ee was lean □ acck

\. The p\anwaey rs WOT at NEGO. Ne. Aona trons oS We

“oak ne. Oty of “Sows Of Yoo

q: Tie FW yep S OF ISSUE. ry Sees Sos! Carl D Duis Decause

he as wwrvten “TAS Bherpe on.

spavg nt “mes. Complamg———

p> the 9 cons of seme ob

TA ava OPP CATS diss ang -OOUcs pa Ofece hice, aia Morea CHa sok, eae Dawe would like 0,

—— TW" nore. ne. dont have RV slow wrth 4

ops gplaw Awrtls jaune, wn pease Upon □□

veople. i Yasic_

Nels ee Se

Lt The ac ON 6 ards NA cAoN O71 We:

dofLondets - ne coced Wental □□□

TH emontiena| Wsrrsgs {00s \a_and □□

becalsse Wain ACh av SN pe. □□ TW oye San Secor 24 “ON Wares □

Sune. 4 so wy Re wes AS □□

ha DER yer Suber land 16 wot yust _—__ TE chewing 11 Spano Ene. meArcert _ iiey Be 8150 sapere Engage □□ he Aske you ool ody coy

__ ne passiug ut ab Werk oF sai Was □□ . Some. Ode ‘and ww ey wo SN 0

oe (Cane Nurse Sow) ech mg, Ae

do tne. caesaeans ancweS in. Ptkeetngl Awe. potty vr Sas §: cH rec Shaun dna" a

. | ote cart (Sraudig \wthe boy) \S □□ _ Pw BCCOCAANCEE ED VW Rieyg wpeedute

0 _Y \c % Precedu of \M ea ve)

encedudh. ne clawed asks maccr Gefendumrss □ recess So Oyewerad he denied □ L\\p i a

□□

= {ye we ENN TNT SN bat MANIA □□ TNE OI IE OT T New York State Commission of Correction 4 Inmate Grievance Form . . Form SCOC 7032-1 (11/2015) : C Yee cok at CaN \ Housing Locativiiy, A Je . a4 poe Name of Inmate: Cla Ke. CUWN Grievance #:___ | COS Brief Description of the Grievance (Submitted by the grievant within 5 days of occurrence . Number of Sheets Attached ( ) \ ' , (26 PA ' 70 WAN Onmgain 0 cel SON MN Pricer IVY PVG Vos! Yd ONO of Twi othepe [ko es . □□ □ Steud NOW dad Pb PCAD IDE of Vy □ 4 * - o> imed cach wohwn thoy €&cohh aT aonctdler a 7 . 25 pig tn | 0 As) WN DOAN SAPS Action requested by the grievant (Submitted by the grievant within 5 days of occurrence): | yy VU _ Number of Additional Sheets Attached (}) —- . \ pl 4: © in wl Wolly h ka phe At ans METINCERP ST p Nef 14 _Pae._1dy_modeed+) ayy. :

Grievant Signature: -LO-YV-1 Garg ye Date/Time Submitted: 7 ORE en (eo C1 Recelving Staff Signafure:_, oe Date/Time Received: 7“ Oo BS camera . □ Investigatidn Completed b CT DN . Date Completed: / Decision of the Grievance Codfdinator Number of Sheets Attached () Written decision shall Be issued within 5 business days of receipt of grievance and shall Include specific facts and reasons underlying determination ut oT □□□ Non-Grievable issue as per 9 NYCRR §7032.4(h) (may not be appealed to CAO) (1 Grievance Accepted □□ Grievance Denied|on Merits Grievance Denied|due to submitted beyond _5 days of act or occurrence (can be appealed to CAO [] Grievance Accepted in part/ Denied in part (Note specific Acceptance/Denial parts _ below) : , 1 Arers er [re he ad uel ty he | (Yttho A ALses Offre ws Ste binn par Freier oof Mod Onder’ 'o Checkin “Whe Mo eh oe We inmates prea □ Behan ww Mrownace ull Doles & Vroceafune .

oo 54 Signature of the Grievante Coordinato Date: /

OF Are Unynates (ETSaM | GPACO quad powosoxucy) ‘yn pati Rete Maicy Hloey ) Daca. Seated at en tment Peple hes to cinderctand that , word we werh How peopke spre is

oo Loe paltant. ps Phew urd □□ Lehals nypetanb os dow hee Reel i pet pecercanly how. Yel. Yrford AM SE chen efbus eh 2 Pape fer valid aver. Taping Phe mned=cart up oe Ae burt

tet pe Palate WY Wod without them-pporng, WW ity Space tush he a bay Space with wie,

goes =mno0 □ oo | S25 = Rat js aQl- . 3 , 7S po co Tt eS ao Eos 2 @ fw VA ame CP & OS @- © SA. CY Pe = it POD ost, □ we K & □ BS Et Te —~t or’ 7) + £ □□ as #4 ¥ Pe 2. —£ Poa Va “J © (Se srtQ UM UE erg £8 ene 2% ete Sy Spe A’ aly £ + NO ee = {4 i oS apr we 2 €' s/h) tee = ow! ~_ es Ht pee c cb We ke fey paere areata = Li we. 8a ed ce ie □ = " . : mM 4 40 Alaris Fee ' = = : OON c.., = fp we YRS B85 8G | = Co. RG ay 3 = Oe 3 8 i a A aps an a lly “OFS 3

. i . © o a

\ | soa Fo Nr ON OE NNO NNN beet Se a PEN OE eee Re OT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OLTOYFS, :

Write the full name of each plaintiff or petitioner. a . CaseNo □□□ ‘cv OFT BO( WSK » -against- | OPLiceé Seater Gnd Tot NOTICE OF MOTION Shon. Capt &.Gobie OrRcer Devlet Write the fullname of each defendant or respondent.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Dla LW ERC ( □ ev wy Cook Doll plaintiff or defendant name of party who Is making the motion requests that the Court; Rul of. x (p ) | Mot On, of Sug mary uagemne nT Briefly describe what you want the court to do. You should also irtclude the Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure or the statute under which you are making the motion, if you know. □ a, Tp PE AD bes □ In support of this motion, I submit the following documents (check all th Aiple ic W le □ □ □□ eennermmecern CL] memorandum of law fe □ ody x NS nec 09 2019 |e my own declaration, affirmation, or affidavit . C the following additional documents; Cook v. Suterland et al U.S.D.C. 19-cv-02780-NSR

Dated Signature erin Cools Faortod{@le Name . _ Prison Identification # {if incarcerated) — Uf d io Wells Farm Pdi Gowen WN. (048 Address City State Zip Code

Telephone Number (if available) . E-mail Address (if availabl¢) RAENCE DOUGHTY □□ Notary Public, State of New York The foregoing dra. kr.” jleviges Registration #01D06178077. □ a ualified In Orarige Co before me this 2@_day avin Tisdfimission Expires Sept, 10,2025 SDNY Rev: 5/24/2036 oe Public ae

————e——EEeEeEeeeee eee UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Tee NE At, Kevin Cak™ 201 Fill in above the full name of each plaintiff or petitioner. Case No.\ | CV BOTRONSR , -against- . Suter! aud Byof. Dewiththyad Cat \wholis ~Gher®h

Fill in above the full name of each defendant or respondent. ‘DECLARATION Re sonnrce, to BeVordauts lever -po the | \ . ‘ ‘ | . □□ A Abn, Nelson Si Rowen +o Wiss GOMpla uh Dae-T/? Briefly explain above the purpose of the declaration, for example, “in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” ¢ . L K ey! \N of) Ic , declare under penalty of perjury that the following facts are true and correct: □ In the space below, describe any facts that are relevant to the motion or that respond to a court order. You may also refer to and attach any relevant documents. \ ugk pee aD. □□□ he dense claim the plamtte stared oFRicel 4 . Oy Suberleand warbohed pe crore Wand iy. 6 out. Tne plawe ty moade_po $uch Clai wat. ptatewment, | Tt * M4 MN Awd Or > SYOrewMe The... me dant with Sytenand aud DeWrtt ap poliee|

Rev, 6/30/16 .

APRorewt times avid ON 2, Vhe detense A66& ‘not dispiebe io: ions ef Suter(and on Mews Wut Clown vt was cyl ih the Vine-.duty. The. jeteyse 1 it woos Por the puppose Tb ACOUSE , aCtMy Ey uw) ate “wos: \EHCA\ . OFS Welwikt tsk parte oul a Ce\\, pated latin an ipa: Deke Neg MW: owe Wond on Plait ure told aim +0 Ware and the:Sent chow Sra co pa _ Sirg sednched, The: elaine? ford GPT cas

OPoOUSE awd Nuwr later 4, Vne nlatterd 1S not Complaiuiwa abou: tions but the actors’ 6S Hilo shah □□ lhe plans: § did seck and Chan ge □ ermedtes parti ping Fo Sutetland +o. the po rb TL shold +he. soseete| nevted Wealthy worker Clarise Willams dteteramt fuse % Pelt {ike □ wag beng sowatly \ec £A56,08 Attach additional pages and documents if necessary. \ . Apc Lan Code Executed on (date) Signature Keyin Cok a 04% Name Prison Identification # (if incarcerate o Wells Faow Ray C oshen ni (OTA Address City State Zip Code “Telephone Number Fevalable) sedge Adiess favalable) | aces | TMeforegoing:tocuon — serswrtgee □ Comfaton pte Sent 10.23 | ine this22_day Asyeonbor 2019 Page 2 ee

pe BS Dee Cn me ‘ ie Boo fs 219 □□ sis = Raa SS 7 □□ Lok? 2D te 4 FgheS ‘ OC oO % VS Se □□ — OWS TE Dot ae © > és 5 te — ~ ho- 22To x ho zom~ >> a @-E & és s TAS SG a ae 2 to aS Of A “Tt feb rr, a —~ Ee BS aoe oe 5 . wo gS “208 Ss Me O ¢ Fe, rt > “gael | Reo . . =" / . Sn, ae □ Sa . oh. ee Si = } t Be Ey Re 2 rsd se = x a tes □ = = c = Pian Fe (8 OD Le ESSN □□ = SPAR PEIWE eS 2 fF = po J ence Hy ee \ g z to: Sp > : = * 1 | AI AQ eM | Ld . □ Leweieesttnen teen q = | Ae 2 \— U.5.D.C. NS Wy 4 WIP =O A : . w a

United States: Dietrie- wo r Southern District of New Yor Kevin (aol, 048le.. “ 14 ncY- 69190 ~~ aganngte Docket Ais 4 “ ve) ShenslP- Can E. Deloss, Sureclandtiy — Cop — De Wilt 3 at Sudqe Hon’ Nelson S. Rome ish te Judge Won Pauls. Sevigon

ten foe Suy Mary Sudoement The plow? aske the Court +0 pule fase.) Upon The Poor, . The defence dowe not dispute the Pact thet Suberaud FEXMAI | Warrassed The plaiw\PP. the. defense arquewmany is TNO PAWS Od not ekhquet al cee dies witty +he Ad wimgrebyon. The plan~ HRP tryed and tried 44a WwoasiiKt HON TPrevance wty\ yer PANEER Brough the matter +o +e atenteh ofthe WIE Le | □□□ " OF preee renee eaecnece □ | | meaty worket V NEC 06 2019 □□ □ usne

cyan then dhe sex aald Warnace ment Sear qecredce hut werease ever oCPCes Ond SyalP Started +o gorxUan\y lracnass rhe Plaintet +00, hee sexual harrassment. Aidit abake. uUik A@FER □□□ Action, wa prolyl bekore the Court. a. The defense does not depute the. fere| Tet ogrleer Ye wit cecal assaulted the Pawnee The deLenge canquoevavetn t 15 +hat oFFicey Newt got +o do unsavory And Seen aars Unde Wwe pretense of . On ‘| \y ia Soy DR othe nate: ENTE Vang matched our thee ceils and down to the Showers to be Sinped Searched Whi \s Dew'sk dong 4 lnands eh And ve □□ Dewitts hand eh the pant > tn TWh ovthtee minutes have +o do wrth anya yh NLL Oo fy! wh ny thing but +0 atuse, FrutiPy hin □□□□□ and hambate ne plant Ey

fff et Pies 9AG Oe woe £8 2 ee Be Tg) ie nas Ab Ree ge rary east oO . © oe pty, = Oo pets eg 4 a es rea aff GRAN Ho mn § servants, Ae ry 4 © & i PO EY SEs at iene aft □□ or Danas +B . » of © J we SI SS = . me ‘Qj — + SF 8 2s + C% ty □ ~O & = Sow oS ee oy oO Ms © on WL BESS Gh. SALES &) aed tq ~ □□ A A " POO —-SE ; Me = i “2 ey = a DBS “OS □□□ ter. a, Soot a S +e orn 1 RS 295 7 ! . + hone . D 3 © □□ we, OS FR EO . wi . oS SS —ft- . 8s SHO. □ a sae □ = VY we Se & + = a [em = ; seems ! = CS wee, i Meat rf wre a a A OY HP = mA f □ wate □ oe om fm CSD Ro? seen ere = fm VO yg Spee Liat din a: mh aw gr ffs, peReeea = Bnd & Gs / SON c te f Ne Gey On?; wa + : □ a LY Sf □□□ 3, Oe = is gest") = / Sf “ap? oN a ie f Gir, a * 2 . we os ty □□ oO , oot fa oe fh NS utily Me ay © = “ey saith °2@ him yf a 2 may nv . fo = o © Wl

otk T me Pe TT LAVIN ELS OTTER Vey Ee 7 Southern District oP Mew York

Kor) *alT0y 49) Kevin Cod"attoy pocket ant 14-0 08190 ALIEN ~ 1 HEEWER: O80 "\cep _ Serer lang hoy (9) ts Ue lea Wis □□ PLS Dewitt ag Meco an 12 Shee et ~ Carl Veloag | USDC. WP Dietrick Judes thon. Nelson S.Peutxh we ~_ Magutate dudge’ OM: Poyl BE. bawson

Motion Por Summary Judeynente The Dlonyd P4 asks. The doupk +o Tule dy his Matter Pased on the Bache. 1 The defense daont Dispute, the Loe} that sncer OUTER land. SEU hoirrassed +he Plantipe, The de$ enge OreUeMey + SR The didvih cock or eX hous at) Temed\es, The plane +¥iaq And Tied to hove Saterlands act jens JeSiSted “te THE plait weit ven a frievance 4,3 Daly tee oreuairt the mater +a't.6 hienton OP the mental yy cal ta worker And st

the sacua\ Inarroas did nor decrgase but ‘\oreased, Other sticers Stacked 40

DEXUAy \hanrass Eye Cee Oot ore 4 ye wins AcPiONnS voklect tha ON" The acts of Serum) enpassetent didnt abwre atten HK commales wes Wed, \e the a. The deRenge does net Asyure me Sug ASSHU\Y OFFcer De Witt acres pen The plamhay The deenses arq- Utmiaink yg Dewitfact {8 per Wwitted And Welk he ah bounds of him Oving hig Jobe Lt THe laid are berg Vakew gut thee cells 46 syo Showers +0 be Sithped Searched wh 1s De wit} doing A han desea bho pia hike The 14 nO Massh Why lout 40 saps cle mor \— roe the Pen ana qtahity lyimgel>, Ln do e Witt have ‘nis hand on he laa eb buth Bor two to tho iMivochles and \What de hig hand on the Plant PRs geet butt got +6 do Wim +ne SZaPeh of Wig Jal Pevicd «

Dewws caxua ASsauth UPON We awrite P Was Clearly +2 arouse and qratty niwsetfp Ad ostihate +he plAWARE Levin Cos .

Date

\ Sineavely, Keun, Celle

condianen anne Coa.

The foregou:.. « 2S sci me this Ae of Dseemlocr 24

"Notary Public

PED ET 8 crepe ETF RT art ter en Waa : ao PE . at ite /f dt LO 23 ii fi THEE he □□□ □ 3 SPARE 0° Nate, = of ‘ an Ns > iv i i \s "= a ‘bl ce? iN ad = 3 ¢ arth Sc Wo Gerad ites = ESP Pe = f(a SF © I } = ks A TAS Vary ‘ = jak ai}, ee i Boas ol » OF aI = : Py ce = od 3 = os . . Mm «6 = =

“RY = = Ho Sd BO wt j 8 Se 2,52 re > □ oy Om ue iN =p SS J: os Lo Ut Pax □ on ~ Qo LAS * . & SSS i Seo EX SDS Rt . 7 Oo te eS 2 it > » vas Ce Ss nt 2 CT “co pop □ yer] i ~ S Th o> SAH on | 2 Lm eg iG : ih Ch N_- be = Lye = i ‘ othe’ “~ cae fe = . oe . J, PHoDW 6 ai S oo oS +E ae > □□□ Oo 3 SO far a A a □□ bus 62 baat PR ~ er i ‘gk

Cook v. Sutherland, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Cook v. Sutherland (Cook v. Sutherland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related