U.S. District Court, Northern District of N.Y. Case Summaries: July

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Jul 9, 2008

U.S. District Court, Northern District of N.Y.

Preliminary Injunction

Civil Rights

Dzwonczyk v. Syracuse City

Police Department

08-CV-00557

Judge McCurn

Background: The plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction and restraining order against the Syracuse City Police enjoining its employees and police officers to "stay away from [the] plaintiff and his residence." The plaintiff was arrested in May for aggravated harassment. He filed a civil rights lawsuit alleging he was not read his Miranda rights and the detective would not let him put on his socks or notify his mother that he was leaving prior to his removal from his residence. The plaintiff now "fears for his safety and well being" and is "not sure why a police officer and an undercover agent" came to his residence after he filed his civil rights complaint.

Ruling: The plaintiff's claim that "he is not sure why" certain officers came to his residence and knocked on his door is insufficient to find that he is "likely to suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted." The motion is denied.

Wlodzimierz J. Dzwonczyk, pro se, and Mary Anne Doherty, city corporation counsel, for the defendant

Privacy Act

Title VII -- Retaliation

Wiatr v. Defense Finance and

Accounting Service

05-CV-0765

Judge Mordue

Background: The plaintiff is employed by the federal government at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and is bringing action under the Privacy Act of 1974 and Title VII. A verbal eruption by the plaintiff directed at another employee prompted a complaint and investigation of the plaintiff. He claims the defendants violated his rights under the Privacy Act when his supervisor investigated a complaint against him without speaking to him and reviewing his side of the dispute. The plaintiff also claims his supervisor lowered his annual performance appraisal from "highly successful" to "fully successful" in retaliation for the plaintiff's prior equal employment opportunity activity.

Ruling: The court notes that even a categorical denial by the plaintiff would not have obviated the need for further investigation. When the plaintiff was asked to provide information, he said he was unable to do so until he saw a copy of the complaint. No reasonable factfinder could find the defendants failed to comply with section 552a(e)(2) of the Privacy Act and the claim is dismissed. There was no evidence of pretext or a retaliatory motive as the plaintiff's supervisor was justified in issuing the reprimand and giving the lower performance appraisal. The retaliation claim is dismissed.

Jay G. Williams III for the plaintiff, and William F. Larkin, U.S. Attorney's Office, for the defendant

Prisoner

Civil Rights

Medical Care

Mosby v. Tompkins County Jail

06-CV-1165

Judge Mordue

Background: The plaintiff brought this prisoner civil rights action against 16 medical and corrections defendants, of which 13 moved to dismiss. Among his claims, the plaintiff alleges inadequate mental health care and deprivation of legal materials for eight days.

Ruling: The court finds that, although it is probable the physical injury requirement of 42 U.S.C. [section]1997e(e) will prevent the plaintiff from pursuing compensatory damages on his claim for inadequate mental health care, the amended complaint is sufficient to withstand dismissal at the pleading stage in view of the plaintiff's pro se status. Because the alleged deprivation of legal materials arguably may support the plaintiff's retaliation claim, the court does not dismiss it at the pleading stage.

Malik Az'Rael Mosby, pro se, and Jonathan Wood, Tompkins County Attorney's Office, for the defendants