Diaz v. Donahue et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________
FREDERICK DIAZ,
Plaintiff, 	22-CV-6559 (CJS)
vs
JAMES F. DONAHUE,
Superintendent, et al., 	DECISION and ORDER
Defendant.
_________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
This is an action by Frederick Diaz (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), asserting
claim under Section 1983. 	Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion (ECF Nos. 43-44) for
preliminary injunctive relief and a stay of this action. The application is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that during his confinement at the Elmira
Correctional Facility (“Elmira”), Defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First
Amendment for his possession of a prison employee roster; subjected him to cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment by causing psychological pain and
searching his cell; and violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights by
temporarily confiscating his personal property, confining him in the Special Housing Unit
(“SHU”), and revoking his law library job. 	The Court allowed Plaintiff’s retaliation claim to
proceed to service against Defendants Henry, Yehl, Keller, Carroll and Donahue, and
dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining claims with leave to amend. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff never filed
Case 6:22-cv-06559-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/16/24 Page 1 of 5

2
an amended pleading, and consequently the only claim going forward is the retaliation claim.
Issue was joined in late 2023, and on March 20, 2024, the Honorable Marian W. Payson,
United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Scheduling Order, ECF No. 38. On June 14, 2024,
Defendants notice a deposition of Plaintiff, to occur on July 8, 2024.
On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff, who is now confined at Five Points Correctional Facility
(“Five Points”), filed the subject motion for preliminary injunctive relief and for a stay of the
action. 	The application, consisting of ten handwritten pages, essentially alleges that
employees at Five Points have mistreated him in various ways, such as by assaulting him
during a cell extraction; denying him medical treatment; and requiring him to share a cell with
another inmate. 	Plaintiff alleges that the injuries he sustained during the assault by
corrections staff makes it difficult for him to concentrate. 	Plaintiff also contends that Five
Points staff lost or misplaced his typewriter when he was moved to a different cell. For these
reasons, Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to an injunction, prohibiting DOCCS “from ever
being sen[ding him] back to general population”; requiring DOCCS to dismiss all disciplinary
charges pending against him; requiring DOCCS to 	transfer him to Sing Sing Correctional
Facility “or a more suitable facility;” and requiring staff at Five Points to return his typewriter.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to stay this action indefinitely, since he claims to be unable to
“relax or concentrate upon any task for more than a brief period of time.”
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his
papers liberally to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. 	Nevertheless, for the reasons
discussed below, even construing Plaintiff’s papers liberally, he is not entitled to the relief he
seeks.
In that regard, the standard to be applied when considering an application for
preliminary injunctive relief is well settled:
Case 6:22-cv-06559-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/16/24 Page 2 of 5

3
A party seeking a preliminary injunction ordinarily must show: (1) a likelihood
of irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction;1 and (2) either a likelihood
of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to
make them a fair ground for litigation, with a balance of hardships tipping
decidedly in the movant's favor. When the movant seeks a ‘mandatory’
injunction-that is, as in this case, an injunction that will alter rather than maintain
the status quo-[he] must meet the more rigorous standard of demonstrating a
‘clear’ or ‘substantial’ likelihood of success on the merits.
Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41,47 (2d Cir.2008) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[t]o prevail
on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship
between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.”
Candelaria v. Baker, No. 00–CV–0912E(SR), 2006 WL 618576 at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar.10, 2006)
(citation omitted); accord, Taylor v. Rowland, No. 3:02CV229(DJS)(TPS), 2004 WL 231453
at *2–3 (D.Conn. Feb. 2, 2004). A district court may deny a motion for preliminary injunctive
relief without a hearing, and its decision to do so is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Wall
v. Construction & Gen. Laborer's Union, No. 036091, 80 Fed.Appx. 714, 2003 WL 22717669
at *1 (2d Cir. Nov.17, 2003).
Applying these principles here, it is clear that Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief
in this action, since the matters about which he complains in his motion have no connection
to 	the 	claims 	or 	parties 	in 	this 	action. 	See, 	e.g., 	Bradshaw 	v. 	Annucci, 	No.
923CV0602MADML, 2024 WL 1765524, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2024) (“[N]one of the
officials involved in this alleged wrongdoing are parties to this action, and plaintiff's underlying
claims in this case bear no relationship to the alleged isolated incidents of harm involving
1 Violation of a constitutional right is considered “irreparable harm.” Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482
(2d Cir.1996) (“The district court ... properly relied on the presumption of irreparable injury that flows from
a violation of constitutional rights.”); see also, Charette v. Town of Oyster Bay, 159 F.3d 749, 755 (2d
Cir.1998) (“In the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction, violations of First Amendment rights are
commonly considered irreparable injuries.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 6:22-cv-06559-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/16/24 Page 3 of 5

4
these officials. Thus, this alleged wrongdoing cannot provide a basis for a preliminary
injunction in this lawsuit.”) (collecting cases).
The application for injunctive relief also lacks merit in other respects. 	For example,
the Court would not order DOCCS to transfer Plaintiff to a different facility, to place him in a
single-bunk cell, or to dismiss the disciplinary charges against him, since those types of
decisions 	fall 	outside 	the 	Court’s 	purview. 	See, 	e.g., 	Bradshaw 	v. 	Marshal, 	No.
921CV0826MADCFH, 2023 WL 8642203, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2023) (“[I]nsofar as
plaintiff seeks an order directing his transfer to another facility, as he has been advised
numerous times, it is DOCCS, and not this Court, that determines where plaintiff will be
housed during his period of incarceration. See Meachum, 427 U.S. at 229; Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 248-49 (1983) (stating that inmates have no right to be confined
in a particular state or particular prison within a given state); Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S.
236, 243 (1976) (holding that New York state prisoners have no right to incarceration at a
particular prison facility). It is well-established that DOCCS has “broad leeway in deciding
where to house the inmates under its protective care.” McFadden v. Solfaro, Nos. 95-CV-
1148, 95-CV-3790, 1998 WL 199923, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 1998); see also, Gantt v.
Lape, No. 9:10-CV-0083 GTS/TWD, 2012 WL 4033729, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012) (“The
law is clear that an inmate does not have a right to be confined to the prison of his own
choosing or to a particular type of housing.”) (citations omitted), report and recommendation
adopted sub nom. Gantt v. Mielenz, No. 9:10-CV-0083 GTS/TWD, 2012 WL 4033723
(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012). Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown that the loss of his typewriter
will result in irreparable harm.
Plaintiff also has not shown good cause for the Court to stay this action. 	Plaintiff’s
bald assertion that he is unable to concentrate is unpersuasive and disproved by the fact that
he was able to draft the subject application. 	Similarly, Plaintiff’s preparation of the subject
Case 6:22-cv-06559-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/16/24 Page 4 of 5

5
motion demonstrates his ability to communicate legibly and clearly in his own handwriting and
disproves his suggestion that he cannot prosecute this lawsuit without a typewriter.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons just discussed, Plaintiff’s application (ECF Nos. 43-44) for preliminary
injunctive relief and for a stay of this action is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	July 15, 2024
Rochester, New York
______________________
CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA
United States District Judge
Case 6:22-cv-06559-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/16/24 Page 5 of 5