ࡱ> rtq#` 04bjbj \(K222$222P@3L3D#M~33XD4D4D4|5|5|5LLLLLLL$NhQL2;x5x5;;LD4D44L;>;>;>;D4lD4K;>;L;>;>H,JD43 Q2I<.J,zKLL0MZJ,R<RXJR2J|5d6;>78|5|5|5LL=j|5|5|5M;;;;###$2###2VtJtLJ  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LUIS ROSALES, Plaintiff, vs. TIMOTHY QUINN, JOSEPH GIANNOTTA, RICHARD PFLEUGER, WILLIAM MARTENS and RANDALL CALHOUN, et al. Defendants.  Civil Action No. 9:03-CV-601-LES/RFT  PLAINTIFFS PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP Office and Post Office Address One Park Place 300 South State Street Syracuse, NewYork 13221-2078 Telephone: (315)425-2828 Douglas J. Nash Facsimile: (315)703-7364 of Counsel E-Mail: dnash@hiscockbarclay.com INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Luis Rosales submits the following pre-trial memorandum of law pursuant to the Courts order of May 31, 2007. The issue to be resolved at the trial of this matter is whether the plaintiffs constitutionally protected right to petition the government for redress of grievances and/or his 8th Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment was violated at the Auburn Correctional Facility between December, 2002 and May, 2003, and if so, what amount of damages should be awarded to the Plaintiff as a result of the defendants wrongful conduct. In this case the plaintiff alleges that: (a) defendant Giannotta deprived the plaintiff of his first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances by placing the plaintiff in a three-day keeplock confinement simply because the plaintiff had filed a grievance against Giannotta that Giannotta felt was untrue; (b) defendant Quinn deprived the plaintiff of his first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances by threatening the plaintiff with physical harm if he did not stop filing grievances against the other defendants; (c) defendant Pfleuger both deprived the plaintiff of his first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances and violated the plaintiffs right against cruel and unusual punishment by assaulting the plaintiff on two consecutive days in retaliation for a grievance the plaintiff previously had filed against defendant Pfleuger; and (d) defendants Martens and Calhoun both deprived the plaintiff of his first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances and violated the plaintiffs right against cruel and unusual punishment by assaulting the plaintiff after the plaintiff refused to sign a release of a grievance the plaintiff previously had filed against defendants Pfleuger and Calhoun. LEGAL ISSUES Standard For Proving A Retaliation Claim. A plaintiff alleging a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 must demonstrate that (1) the activity in question was protected by the First Amendment, and (2) that the defendants conduct was in response to that protected activity. Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489, 492 (2d Cir. 2001); Hynes v. Squillace, 143 F.3d 653, 657 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 907 (1998); Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996); Jackson v. Johnson, 118 F. Supp. 2d 278, 291-92 (N.D.N.Y. 2000); Gaston v. Coughlin, 81 F. Supp. 2d 381, 386 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). Once a prima facie showing is made by the plaintiff, a defendant may avoid liability by demonstrating by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that it had proper reasons for acting adversely against the plaintiff. Hynes, 143 F.3d at 657; Graham 89 F.3d at 79; Gaston, 81 F. Supp. 2d at 386; Jackson, 118 F. Supp. 2d at 292. Plaintiff intends to establish at trial that: (a) defendant Giannotta retaliated against the plaintiff for filing a grievance against Giannotta that Giannotta felt was untrue by placing the plaintiff in a three-day keeplock confinement; (b) defendant Quinn retaliated against the plaintiff for filing grievances against the other defendants by threatening the plaintiff with physical harm if he did not stop; (c) defendant Pfleuger retaliated against the plaintiff for filing grievances against Pfleuger by assaulting the plaintiff on two consecutive days; and (d) defendants Martens and Calhoun retaliated against the plaintiff for refusing to release grievances against Pfleuger and Calhoun by assaulting the plaintiff. Such conduct states claim under Section 1983. See Franco v. Kelly, 854 F.2d 584, 589-590 (2d Cir. 1998). Standard For Proving An Eighth Amendment Claim. To establish an 8th Amendment claim, two showings must be made. First, the deprivation alleged by the prisoner must be in objective terms sufficiently serious such that the deprivation denied the minimal civilized measure of lifes necessities the objective element. Branham v. Meachum, 77 F.3d 626, 630-31 (2d Cir. 1996). Second, because only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain implicates the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner must prove facts indicating that the responsible prison official had a sufficiently culpable state of mind amounting to at least deliberate indifference the subjective element. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). In this case, the plaintiff expects to prove at trial that defendant Pfleuger assaulted the plaintiff on two consecutive days in retaliation for a grievance the plaintiff previously had filed against defendant Pfleuger, and that defendants Martens and Calhoun assaulted the plaintiff after the plaintiff refused to sign a release of a grievance the plaintiff previously had filed against defendants Pfleuger and Calhoun. Because these attacks were unprovoked and unrelated to any security concerns then existing at the prison, and because they were designed solely to inflict pain on the plaintiff and intimidate him, they constituted unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Standard For Proving Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proven by a defendant. Tellier v. Fields, 230 F.3d 511, 515 (2d Cir. 2000). Qualified immunity protects prison officials from personal liability [for damages] under 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Walker v. McClellan, 126 F.3d 127, 129 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). The defendants qualified immunity defense fails because the plaintiffs retaliation claims relates to the clearly established constitutional free speech right to petition the government for redress of grievances and to unprovoked assaults that served no purpose other than to injure and intimidate the plaintiff. There is no question that, as prison officials, the defendants knew or should have known that their actions would violate the plaintiffs rights. Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481, 490 (2d Cir. 2004); Stephenson v. Doe, 332, F.3d 68, 78 (2d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the defendants will be unable to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Motion In Limine Regarding The Defendants Inability To Offer Any Evidence Regarding The Plaintiffs Convictions, Or Any Unrelated Disciplinary Matters. At trial, the defendants should be precluded from introducing any evidence, or eliciting any testimony, regarding the crimes of which the plaintiff was convicted, or the circumstances thereof. Admission of such evidence may unfairly lead the jury to believe that the plaintiff has a violent or bad character and that the defendants typical version of events that the plaintiff was the aggressors in the specific incidents of brutality at issue is more likely to be true. These are precisely the inferences that the Rules of Evidence seek to prevent. The Federal Rules of Evidence permit the impeachment of a witness by prior convictions punishable in excess of one year. See Fed. R. Evid. 609(a). However, if more than ten years has lapsed since the conviction or the release from confinement for the conviction, the evidence is not admissible unless the probative value substantially outweighs prejudicial effect. Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). In Zinman v. Black & Decker, Inc., 983 F.2d 431, 434 (2d Cir. 1993), the Second Circuit stated that a conviction outside of the ten year window should be admitted very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances. The plaintiffs criminal convictions are more than ten years old and have no relevance to this matter. Accordingly, the defendants should not be permitted to offer evidence concerning the plaintiffs convictions. Additionally, the defendants should likewise be precluded from offering any evidence regarding any separate and unrelated disciplinary matters against the plaintiff. Under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). This rule prohibits the use of other wrongful acts against a [person] merely to show that the [person] had the propensity to commit the act in question. Ismail v. Cohen, 899 F.2d 183, 188 (2d Cir. 1990). Thus, evidence concerning any prior and unrelated disciplinary actions involving the plaintiff cannot be used by the defendants to support their allegations against Plaintiff in this case. Indeed, a plaintiffs prison disciplinary records are almost always inadmissible. Lombardo v. Stone, 99 Civ. 4603, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1267, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2002). Accordingly, the plaintiff requests that the Court issue an Order precluding the defendants from mentioning or offering evidence concerning any unrelated disciplinary matters against the plaintiff. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiff was the victim of improper retaliation for having exercised his constitutionally protected rights under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was the victim of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution. DATED: July 9, 2007 Hiscock & Barclay, LLP By: /s/ Douglas J. Nash Douglas J. Nash Bar Roll No. 511889 Attorney for Plaintiff Luis Rosales One Park Place 300 South State Street Syracuse, New York 13221-2078 Telephone: (315) 425-2828 Facsimile: (315) 703-7364 Email: dnash@hiscockbarclay.com   In 1991, the plaintiff was convicted of second degree murder and related weapons charges. The plaintiff has been incarcerated in connection with those convictions ever since. It is believed that the plaintiffs only other criminal offenses occurred in the 1980s and were misdemeanor drug-related charges.  Even if the defendants had any legitimate basis under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for the admission of the plaintiffs disciplinary histories or alleged bad acts, which they do not, such evidence must be excluded where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Here, in addition to being highly prejudicial, evidence of plaintiffs disciplinary infractions, allegedly uncharged criminal disputes, unrelated fights, and other bad acts, is of almost no probative value.   PAGE  PAGE 2  DOCPROPERTY "Identifier1" \* MERGEFORMAT SYLIB01\568830\1  {H0854102.1}  PAGE 2  DOCPROPERTY "Identifier1" \* MERGEFORMAT SYLIB01\568830\1  PR^_`eqtwx           2 = C D J a ھڳhhM? h6hA heHhA 5hhA 5 hA 5hA hhX= hsShX=h5V;hX=5 hX=6hFhX=6 hX=5hhX=5hX=hFhX=5jhFhX=5U83QR`apqwx  $$1$Ifa$gdX=$$1$If`a$gdX= $$1$Ifa$gdX= $1$IfgdX=x1$gdX=1$gdX=0Z3+4/4        D E c^^^^^V^$a$gdA gdA kd$$IflF`$Vv t06    44 la $$1$Ifa$gdX= E F G H I J a : ; H x  d`gd d@&`gdn $d@&a$d] 8gd 8BgdA 8BgdA ^gdA gdA    ! & : ; G H R ^ _ g t    4 f u t u w  ˿ſſŧŭŭśŧŕŏŏ hX=@ hn@ h[@ h+"@ h-@ hTu{@ haC@ h;@ hB@ h@ hM?@haC5>*@hM?5>*@haC hA 6 h6hhA h6hA 7(/$%5A!#/DFYz#$./01>Mv˿˷˷ï˯÷˫˷çã˟˛˗hkGhaC6hkGh=h ?sh:|hhlEh8#h8#6hlEhaC6h-h8#hYhaC hhhh5>*@h5>*@ hX=@ h@h?ch@6Fl:c"#%(,}--- $ vpa$ d`gd}gbFgd}gb d`gd}gb d`gdAd` d`gd- d`gd8#Fgd- $d@&a$gd %,:EFrstIn67?|}J]f5tսչ繞h+" hAhAhA hh-h ?sh-h*(h$o6h$oh}gbh?ch@hh@ hX=@ h@hhKhkGhaChkGhaC6hYh8#hY68()Zi|/@KPSjkl>F\c#,9:Cccd鯩 hR aJhR hR aJhhaC6 haC6hhaC heh- hA@ hX=@hPEIhA@h-hAhA6hA hAhA=   $ % 9 ; D I L R S T U W \ +!!!!!!!!! ""%"1"U"f"""""####Żܭέ}vv h}gbh}gbh6hR 6h6h6h66h:|h hhaChh}gbh-hR h}gb0J_>*B*aJphhR hR 6aJhR hR aJhR 0J_>*B*aJph hR hR 0J_>*B*aJph#hR hR 0J_6>*B*aJph.#$$ $I$K$$$$$$ %%%2&5&>&B&M&W&0'4'?'B'C'`'''''((((~(((((((()p))v*+!+D+F+j+++,,W,X,Z,k,,,,,,,- -#-C-\-n-s-|-}-ÿhFhh}gbh}gb6hNs jh}gb0J`Uhw{hB:h\AhB:haC6haC h}gbh}gbh}gbI}-~------............/////G/N/O/f/ 0 0 0000F1G1Y3Z3[3]3^3½㉂xtxtltljh%;0Uh%;0jh%;00J`U hUhA hfh}gb h}gb6 hh}gbh24h}gb>*h#hh}gb6>*h#hh}gb>* h h}gb h}gb>* h}gbh}gbh h}gb5;hA h"}hA 5hh}gbhaC hB:haC haC5>* h}gb5>*(-..../0/N/O/f/s/t////// 0 0 $IfgdA $Ifgd}gb `$Ifgd}gb $Ifgd}gbdgdA  vpd`gd 000F1Y3Z3\3]3_3`3a3b3d3e3g3h3i3j3k3dgd}gb.gd}gb  vpgdA @kd$$Iflt(# t644 la^3_3h3l3m3s3t3u3w3x3~33333333333333333333333333333344%4&4'4(4)4*4+4.404ƆhaCh%;00J!CJjhOc0JU*hOc0JmHnHu* hOc0JjhOc0JUh%;0h%;00J! hOc0J! h%;00J!jh%;00J!Uh%;00JmHnHu h%;00Jjh%;00JUhOch%;0 h}gbh%;02k3l3u3v3w3333333333333'4)4*4+4,4-4.4 $h]ha$gdOc  Hh]hh]h &`#$gdA.4/404  vpgdA I....()()))()() 000&P1P/R 8$:pFBP/ =!"#$% F....()()))()()00&P1P/R 8$:pABP/ =!"#p$% $$If!vh5V5v5 #vV#vv#v :V^l t65V5v5 / / / $$If!vh5#v:V^l t065ab@@@ NormalCJ_HhmH sH tH P@P Heading 1 & F x@&^KHNN Heading 2" & F 8x@&^NN Heading 3" & F ppx@&^pNN Heading 4" & F  @ @ x@&^@ LL Heading 5  & F x@&^LL Heading 6 & F xx@&^LL Heading 7  & F x@&^LL Heading 8 & F x@&^N N Heading 9" & F PPx@&^PDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List 4B@4 Body Text$a$L>L Title$$$@&a$5>*@KHll Memo Headings7 `0 `xx*$^``zz Memo Heading Last= `0 `xx&d*$^``4@24 Header  !8 @B8 Footer  !CJ2)@Q2 Page NumberCJ>'a> Comment ReferenceCJ8r8  Comment TextCJDTD Block Textx]^\$@\ Envelope Address!@ &+D/^@ >%> Envelope ReturnCJ@V@ FollowedHyperlink>*B* 0U@0 Hyperlink>*B*: @: Index 1^`:!:  Index Heading5:.:  TOA Headingx5.. TOC 2 ^2O2 IDSmall CJOJQJ<P"< Body Text 2 "dx:Q2: Body Text 3#xCJTMBT Body Text First Indent$`NCRN Body Text Indent%$^a$ZNQbZ Body Text First Indent 2&$`a$XRrX Body Text Indent 2'$d^a$PSP Body Text Indent 3(hx^hCJ6"6 Caption )xx52?2 Closing *^$L$ Date+@Y@  Document Map,-D OJQJ8+8  Endnote Text-CJ@@@ }gb Footnote Text.$a$CJ: : Index 2/^`: : Index 30^`: : Index 41^`:: Index 52^`:: Index 63^`:: Index 74^`:: Index 85^`:: Index 96p^p`4/@r4 List7h^h`828 List 28^`838 List 398^8`848 List 4:^`858 List 5;^`:0@: List Bullet < & F>6> List Bullet 2 = & F>7> List Bullet 3 > & F>8> List Bullet 4 ? & F>9> List Bullet 5 @ & F BDB List ContinueAhx^hFE"F List Continue 2Bx^FF2F List Continue 3C8x^8FGBF List Continue 4Dx^FHRF List Continue 5Ex^N1@bN e List Number F & F5OJQJaJ>:r> List Number 2 G & F>;> List Number 3 H & F><> List Number 4 I & F >=> List Number 5 J & F l-l  Macro Text"K  ` @ OJQJ_HhmH sH tH lIl Message Header.L8$d%d&d'd-D^8`OJQJ>@> Normal Indent M^4O4 Note HeadingN<Z< Plain TextO CJOJQJ0K0 SalutationP6@6 Signature Q^DJ"D SubtitleR$$$x@&a$5T,T Table of AuthoritiesS^`L#L Table of FiguresT ^` &@& TOC 1U.. TOC 3 V^.. TOC 4 W^.. TOC 5 X^.. TOC 6 Y^.. TOC 7 Z^.. TOC 8 [^.. TOC 9 \^hh Quote - 1" indent Left & Right]]^j@j A Table Grid7:V^0^6O6 R Hyperlink6 >*ph3@&@@ }gbFootnote ReferenceH*H@H Oc Balloon TextaCJOJQJ^JaJ~ W$0,7JMJM0,;0, Z K[ z z z z z z z; ~%0, 0 3QR`apqwxDEFGHIJa;Hx F l:c $%%&&&&'0'N'O'f's't'''''' ( (((F)`+b+e+j++++++1,$$~~~~~~~~~~~        *"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Y$4 $$oJ$Y$${5$!0$*$*$$UE$$ $!0$!:$O $$id$Y*$$v:$v:$1$$$$$^$^$$3QR`apqwxDEFGHIJa :;Hx F l:c $}%%%&&&&'0'N'O'f's't'''''' ( (((F)Y+Z+\+]+_+`+a+b+d+e+g+h+i+j+k+l+u+v+w+++++++++++++',),*,+,1,0 000000000000 0 00000000 0000000000000000000000000H0H0 F0 0 0  F0 0 0  F0 0  F0 000000000000000000000000 0 0.0.0000N00N004N00lN00 np0 np0 np00 N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N00 np000 yp0@0000000P  ln #}-^304 !#$%&'* E - 0k3.404"()+,/40, $&(Tf!!TU!U@  @H 0( "  0(  B S  ?ff4m:'not{/;'4~='4Ϥ4>'tФt,_l_l____?'_,__FF??$$$&t't'''''''1,     JJCC$$$&''''''''1, B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PostalCode9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate;*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity  1200220072931579DayMonthYear      (Z+h+l+t+w+++++++++++++&,+,.,1, E /k%DK(,6=_"c"m"t"#D#(t*x*Z++,1,::::::::::::3 /k&&(Z+b+c+e+f+h+l+++++++++++++&,(,+,1,(Y+Z+h+l++++++++++&,+,1,|wBJ}I~=Fp;<@ TLq*C;6ǴTGffGTO^* @b6d8$Ald`]Ut21^`.^`.88^8`.^`. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( 88^8`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`56o(hH. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`o(()0^`00^`0.p0p^p`0.@ 0@ ^@ `0.0^`0()0^`0()0^`0)0^`0)P0P^P`0)0^`0o(()88^8`o(()0^`0o(()^`.8^`.^`()p ^p`()@ ^@ `()x^`()^`()^`()^`()88^8`o(()0^`0o(. 0^`0o(()TLq~}|^$AldffGTG@b]Ut;6@ 76[8#=Ns A  1;*(;+'-%;0162v7B:X=\AlEU_M|X}gb h ?sgu7vTu{w{:|aCAYkGOcnR-eK6{B+"FdM?R ^."F$oYQ& ((1,AllPagesIdentifierlAllPagesSaveDateLastPageIdentifierLastPageSaveDateEmptyEmptyEmptyEmpty@d0,@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahomaQTimes New Roman Bold?5 z Courier New" ,& ,& ,&!3N$5!pd'*uV2qHX?aC27C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Templates\hnb_gen.dotTrial Memo 2 (H0854102.DOC;1) H0854102.1DNASHBobbi J. PabonX              Oh+'0 ( H T ` lx Trial Memo 2 (H0854102.DOC;1) H0854102.1DNASH hnb_gen.dotBobbi J. Pabon2Microsoft Office Word@@D9@D9@D9!՜.+,D՜.+,` px  TechLaw3' Trial Memo 2 (H0854102.DOC;1) Title P!19Qu Identifier1Pref_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceSYLIB01\568830\1 L000ϫrPrisoner Stuffgnugent@hiscockbarclay.comNugent, Gabriel M.  !"#$%&'()*+,-.012345689:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`bcdefghjklmnopsRoot Entry F P#QuData /1Table7iRWordDocument\SummaryInformation(aDocumentSummaryInformation8iCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q