Smith v. Evans et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:21-cv-00188-LJV-MJR Document 32 Filed 08/26/22 Pagelof8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WILLIAM D. SMITH 1:21-CV-00188 LUV (MJR)
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND
ORDER
V.

PAUL EVANS — SUPERINTENDENT OF

ERIE COUNTY CORRECTIONS; ALFONSO
HARRIS — CHIEF IN THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE;
ERIE COUNTY NURSE ADMINISTRATOR;
and SERGEANT DEANN LATES

Defendants.

This case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Section 636(b)(1) of
Title 28 of the United States Code, by the Honorable Lawrence J. Vilardo, for the
supervision of discovery and the handling of all pretrial motions. (Dkt. No. 29) Before the
Court is defendants’ motion for a more definite statement. (Dkt. Nos. 24-26) For the
following reasons, defendants’ motion is granted, to the extent explained below.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND

The pro se plaintiff, William Smith, a former pretrial detainee at the Erie County
Correctional Facility in Alden, New York, filed an initial complaint on February 1, 2021
against Paul Evans, Superintendent of Erie County Corrections; Erie County Sheriff
Timothy Howard; Chief of Grievance Alfonso Harris; an unnamed Erie County
Correctional Facility Nurse Administrator; and Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz.

(Dkt. No. 1) The complaint alleged that defendants violated Section 1983 of Title 42 of

Case 1:21-cv-00188-LJV-MJR Document 32 Filed 08/26/22 Page2of8

the United States Code, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), during plaintiffs pretrial detention at the Erie County Correctional Facility.'
(id. at pg. 5) Specifically, Smith alleged he has used hearing aids for years and that while
incarcerated at the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta Georgia, he sent his hearing aids “out to
be repaired.” (/d. at pg. 10) He alleged that before the hearing aids were returned to him,
he was extradited to Buffalo. (/d.) Smith claims that despite medical records showing that
he is hearing impaired and in need of hearing aids, he was repeatedly denied hearing
aids by an Erie County Correctional Facility’s nurse administrator and the jail’s medical
department. (/d. at pg. 5) He stated that the denial of hearing aids made it difficult for him
to understand officers, staff, and other inmates. (/d. at pg. 8) Smith also alleged that he
“won a federal lawsuit against [Erie Correctional and Erie County Holding Center] for this
same issue” in 2008, Case No. 08-CV-485, and that the settlement of that lawsuit required
Erie Correctional to “change [its] policy and procedures on how [it] deal[s] with deaf and
hard of hearing inmates.” (/d.) Smith alleged that he repeatedly grieved the denial of his
request for hearing aids and that he wrote a letter to Superintendent Harris asking that
hearing aids be provided to him as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. (/d. at
pgs. 5, 8-12) However, all of his requests were denied. (/d.)

Judge Vilardo screened the complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2)(B) and
1915A(a). (Dkt. No. 7) To that end, Judge Vilardo allowed plaintiff to proceed with respect

to his ADA claims as well as his Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference (Section

1On February 5, 2021, the Clerk of the Court administratively terminated plaintiffs action
because he did not pay the filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (/d.) On February 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt.
No. 5) The motion was granted on June 3, 2021 and plaintiff's claim was reinstated. (Dkt. No. 7)

2

Case 1:21-cv-00188-LJV-MJR Document 32 Filed 08/26/22 Page3of8

1983) claims against Evans, Harris, and the unnamed Nurse Administrator.” (/d.) Judge
Vilardo dismissed plaintiff's claims against Howard and Poloncarz because the complaint
contained no factual allegations of their involvement in the alleged ADA or constitutional
violations. (/d.) Smith was given 60 days to file an amended complaint and was instructed
that “any amended complaint must include allegations against each of the defendants so
that the amended complaint stands alone as the only complaint that the defendants must
answer in this action.” (/d.)

On July 20, 2021, Smith filed an amended complaint against Evans, Harris,
Sergeant Deanna Lates and the unnamed Nurse Administrator.? (Dkt. No. 15) Smith's
amended complaint consists of a Western District of New York form entitled “Complaint
for Violation of Civil Rights (Prisoner Complaint).” (Dkt. No. 15) Section IV of the form
complaint is entitled “Statement of Claim” and instructs plaintiff to “state as briefly as
possible the facts of [his] case.” (/d. at pg. 4) Smith does not include a narrative
description of his claim in Section IV of the amended complaint. (/d.) Instead, he refers to
“Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H.” (/d.) Smith then attaches 46 pages of exhibits that include
numerous grievances and letters by Smith regarding the denial of his repeated requests
for hearing aids, as well as various responses from the New York State Department of
Corrections and the Erie County Sheriffs Office. (/d. at pgs. 13-59) The grievances and

other attached documents also reflect Smith’s allegations that his hearing aids were sent

2 Judge Vilardo also instructed the Erie County Sheriff's Office to ascertain the full name of
unnamed Nurse Administrator and to provide an address where this defendant could be
reached. (Dkt. No. 7)

3 The unnamed Nurse Administrator was later identified as Sharade Aldinger. (Dkt. No. 15)
Evans, Harris, Aldinger and Lates have all appeared in the case and are all represented by the
Erie County Attorney. (Dkt. No. 23) Plaintiff has abandoned his claims against Howard and
Poloncarz.

Case 1:21-cv-00188-LJV-MJR Document 32 Filed 08/26/22 Page4of8

for repair when he was in Georgia but never returned to him, and that he was regularly
denied hearing aids after being extradited to Buffalo, despite documentation showing that
he has profound hearing loss and that hearing aids are medically necessary. (/d.) The
attached exhibits also refer to plaintiff's !awsuit regarding this same issue in 2008 and his
letter to Evans requesting a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. (/d. at pgs. 20,
44) In some of the attached grievances, Smith also complains that the TTY phone in the
facility is often not in service.‘ (/d. at pgs. 27-28, 31-40) Smith explains that because of
his hearing impairment, he is unable to communicate using the regular facility phone. (/d.)
The grievances indicate that the TTY phone frequently does not work, even though Smith
has made numerous requests that the device be fixed. (/d.)

Judge Vilardo screened plaintiffs amended complaint on November 8, 2021. (Dkt.
No. 18) Judge Vilardo determined that, at this initial stage, plaintiff may proceed with his
claims that Evans, Harris, Aldinger, and Lates violated the ADA by denying him hearing
aids and a working TTY phone. (/d.) Judge Vilardo also found that, at this early stage of
the proceeding, plaintiff stated viable deliberate indifference claims against Evans, Harris,
Aldinger, and Lates. (/d.)

On January 14, 2022, defendants made the instant motion for a more definite
statement. (Dkt. Nos. 24-26) Defendants claim that it is not possible for them to “admit or
deny exhibits lettered ‘A’ — ‘H,’ and, hence, a more definite (narrative) statement of

Plaintiff's claims...prefer-ably in numbered paragraphs...is required.” (Dkt. No. 25)

4A TTY (teletypewriter) is a device that helps people who are deaf, speech-impaired, or hard-of-
hearing use a phone to communicate.

Case 1:21-cv-00188-LJV-MJR Document 32 Filed 08/26/22 Page5of8

DISCUSSION

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), a “party may move for a more
definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so
vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(e). See also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (“If a pleading
fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can
move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding.”). “Motions
pursuant to Rule 12(e) are disfavored and should not be granted unless the complaint is
so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the
defendant seriously in attempting to answer it.” Greater N.Y. Auto. Dealers Ass'n v. Envi.
Sys. Testing, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 71, 76 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).

' Here, the complaint is not so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be
unintelligible. The amended complaint, read together with its exhibits, makes clear that
plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Section 1983 and the ADA when they repeatedly
refused to provide him with medically-necessary hearing aids and other disability
accommodations related to his hearing impairment during his pretrial detention. The
amended complaint lists the individuals involved in the alleged violations; describes the
nature of the alleged unconstitutional or unlawful acts; explains plaintiffs attempts to
utilize the jail’s grievance procedures; and gives the approximate time frame of the
events. Thus, the Court finds that defendants are capable of understanding the claims
set forth in the amended complaint and that no additional information regarding plaintiffs

claims is needed in order for defendants to file an answer or otherwise move against the

Case 1:21-cv-00188-LJV-MJR Document 32 _ Filed 08/26/22 Page6of8

pleading. Indeed, Rule 12(e) is not a substitute for discovery procedures that are meant
to uncover the factual basis of the pleadings, Zuppe v. Elite Recovery Servs., Inc., 3:05-
CV-857, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 432 (D. Conn. Jan. 5, 2006), nor should it be used “simply
to ascertain a plaintiff's legal theories.” Bryson v. Bank of New York, 584 F. Supp. 1306,
1319 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).

However, the Court does agree with defendants that the format of the amended
complaint makes it difficult for defendants to effectively submit an answer to plaintiff's
allegations. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instruct that a complaint should contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that a party should “state [his or her] claims or defenses in
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Here, there is no single narrative portion of the amended
complaint which provides a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claims in numbered
paragraphs. Instead, the factual basis of plaintiffs claims is contained within the
numerous grievances, forms, letters, and other documents attached as exhibits to the
complaint.5 This format would presumably make it difficult for defendants to either “admit
or deny the allegations asserted against them” by plaintiff, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(B),
and an attempt to file such an answer in this format may result in confusion for the Court
and/or the litigants.

Thus, plaintiff is instructed to file a second amended complaint which contains a

short and plain narrative of his ADA and Section 1983 claims against defendants,

5 To the extent that plaintiffs initial complaint contained a narrative describing the factual basis
of his allegations, the amended complaint “supersedes and replaces the original complaint in its
entirety.” See Hancock v. Cnty. of Rensselaer, 882 F.3d 58, 63 (2d Cir. 2018) ("[I]t is well settled
that an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.").

6

Case 1:21-cv-00188-LJV-MJR Document 32 Filed 08/26/22 Page7of8

preferably in separately numbered paragraphs. See McTerrell v. C. Koenigsmann, et al.,
15-A-2874, 2020 WL 956536 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2020) (“The pleading resulting from the
grant of a motion for a more definite statement must be in pleading form, that is a short
and plain statement of claims, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), in separate numbered paragraphs,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b), giving defendant sufficient notice of plaintiffs claims against it.”).
The narrative should briefly state the facts of the case; describe how each defendant was
personally involved in the wrongful action or actions; and provide the approximate dates
and locations of all relevant events.

To be clear, plaintiff is not required to provide any more information as to his
allegations against defendants than what was contained in the amended complaint.
Instead, he should merely restate those same allegations in short, numbered paragraphs
as just described.® Importantly, the second amended complaint should contain any and
all information that plaintiff seeks to incorporate from his initial complaint and first
amended complaint, since the second amended complaint will supersede all prior
complaints in this matter. Defendants are reminded that plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and
that Judge Vilardo has already determined, at this early stage in the proceeding, that
plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts to proceed on his ADA and Section 1983 claims based
on defendants’ alleged failure to provide hearing aids and repair the TTY phone. (Dkt. No.
18) Thus, should plaintiff make a reasonable and good faith effort to comply with this
order, defendants should undertake all necessary and reasonable steps to submit an

answer or other responsive pleading, in order to avoid any further delay.

§ Plaintiff is still permitted to attach exhibits, including the relevant grievances and denials, to the
second amended compiaint, in addition to providing the narrative statement of his claims.

7

Case 1:21-cv-00188-LJV-MJR Document 32 Filed 08/26/22 Page 8of8

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is
granted to the extent described herein. Plaintiff is instructed to file a second amended

complaint on or before October 31, 2022.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2022

Buffalo, New York CA

MICHAEL J. RQEM
United States OER Judge