15-1115
Mitchell v. Doe
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on
the 27th day of January, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________________
Michael Mitchell,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 15-1115
John Doe 1, Watch Commander, Clinton
Correctional Facility; B. Vaughn, Corrections
Officer of Clinton Correctional Facility,
Defendants-Appellees,
State of New York, New York State Department of
Corrections; Thomas LaValley, Superintendent, Clinton
Correctional Facility; John Doe 2, Area Sergeant of Clinton
Correctional Facility (on 7/19/13 A.M. shift); C. Durkin,
Lieutenant, Clinton Correctional Facility; John Doe 3,
Authority in charge of maintaining audio/visual cameras in
‘north’ yard, Clinton Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Michael Mitchell, pro se, Stormville, New York.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York (McAvoy, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Michael Mitchell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 complaint. Mitchell sued corrections officers, alleging that they
violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from an attack by another inmate. The
court dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b), ruling that Mitchell
had not alleged that the officers were aware of a substantial risk of serious harm. We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on
appeal.
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal. Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146,
149–50 (2d Cir. 2001). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and “allow[] the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
To prevail on his claim that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to
protect him, Mitchell must show that they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of
serious harm. See Fischl v. Armitage, 128 F.3d 50, 55 (2d Cir. 1997). An officer acts with
deliberate indifference when he “both . . . [is] aware of facts from which the inference could be
2
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and. . . draw[s] the inference.” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s amended
complaint. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its March 11,
2015 decision.
We have considered all of Mitchell’s arguments and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3