Marshall v. Griffin

OPINION & ORDER   Plaintiff Steven Marshall (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Facility, brings this pro se Action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, against Defendants regarding incidents that occurred at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”).¹ (See generally Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 45).) Before the Court is Moving Defendants’ Motion To Partially Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 51).)² For the following reasons, the Motion is granted. I. Background A. Factual Background The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and are taken as true for the purpose of resolving the Motion. Plaintiff was incarcerated at Green Haven at all relevant times. (Am. Compl. 5.) On October 12, 2015, Plaintiff began submitting grievances complaining of “ongoing acts of abuse, harassment, retaliation, and threats” from a subset of correction staff he refers to as the “Beat Down/Goon Squad.” (Id. 28.) In that grievance, Plaintiff complained that a security officer had bragged to Plaintiff that there was “a new fucking regime” in place and that he could “crack [Plaintiff's] fucking head wide open with [his] fucking stick and murder [him]” if he wanted to. (Id. 30.) The grievance was logged in the Inmate Grievance Program (“IGP”) on October 22, 2015. (Id. 32.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Griffin responded on December 3, 2015, finding claims of this misconduct and the existence of the “Beat Down/Goon Squad” “unsubstantiated.” (Id. 33.) On March 30, 2016, Plaintiff received a decision from the Central Office Review Committee (“CORC”) “denying” Plaintiff’s “requested actions” from his initial grievance. (Id. 36.) On April 1 and 6, 2016, Griffin allegedly responded to other grievances filed by Plaintiff, which pertained to unauthorized interference with Plaintiff’s “inmate prison account” and obstruction of Plaintiff’s “rights to seek redress” of his various grievances. (Id.

37-38.) It is unclear from the Amended Complaint what exactly Griffin’s determinations were on these grievances. (See id.