Baskerville v. Cunningham

Full title: MARTIN L. BASKERVILLE, 00-T-4745, Plaintiff, v. J.P. CUNNINGHAM…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Jan 13, 2004

01-CV-0606Sr (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2004)

Opinion

01-CV-0606Sr.

January 13, 2004

DECISION AND ORDER

KEN SCHROEDER, Magistrate Judge

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to have the undersigned conduct all further proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment. Dkt. #16.

Currently before the Court is plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment and for an order issuing subpoenas for certain witnesses. Dkt. #22. For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the following violations of his constitutional rights while at the Elmira Correctional Facility: (1) Officer Cunningham retaliated against plaintiff for filing grievances by, inter alia, writing false misbehavior reports; and (2) Officer Elliott denied plaintiff access to the courts by preventing him from traveling to the Court of Claims for his trial regarding a personal injury sustained at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Dkt. ## 1, 19. Plaintiff's motion for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 is addressed to this second claim. Dkt. #22.

Officer Elliott claims that he informed plaintiff on December 4, 2000, that he would lose his current cell placement and be assigned a new cell upon his return from the Court of Claims proceedings, and that plaintiff responded that he would not leave his cell. Dkt. #25, ¶ 5. Officer Elliott then informed plaintiff that he was going to return with a form indicating plaintiff's refusal to leave his cell to attend his court appearance; plaintiff responded that he would not sign such a form. Dkt. #25, ¶ 5.

Officer Elliott contacted the Inmate Records Coordinator by telephone and advised her that plaintiff was refusing to leave his cell to attend his court appearance. Dkt. #25, ¶ 6. Later that afternoon, a porter informed Officer Elliott that plaintiff had changed his mind and wished to depart on December 5, 2000, as originally scheduled. Dkt. #25, ¶ 7. Officer Elliott telephoned the Inmate Records Coordinator to advise her of plaintiff's change of heart, but was told that plaintiff's transportation plans had already been cancelled. Dkt. #25, ¶ 7.

Officer Elliott believes that he received the refusal form from the Deputy Superintendent of Security the following morning — December 5, 2000 — at which time Officer Elliott

noted on it that the Plaintiff had refused to sign, based on the Plaintiff's statement to me that he would not sign the form when I returned to his cell later with the form. I noted the date of December 4, 2000 on the form, [sic] because I believe it was more appropriate to indicate on the form the date of the Plaintiff's refusal to attend court (December 4, 2000), as opposed to indicating the date that I actually completed the refusal form (December 5, 2000). Although the form is usually presented to the inmate on the same day that he refuses to go to court, I do not recall now why that was not the case here. It may have been that the Deputy Superintendent for Security simply did not have a chance to print the form out on December 4, 2000, and that I did not receive the form until the next day. In any event, the form simply documents the Plaintiff's refusal to attend court on December 4, 2000, which lead [sic] to the cancellation by the IRC of the Plaintiff's transport plans for December 5, 2000.

Dkt. #25, ¶ 8. The form was faxed to the Court of Claims on December 5, 2000. Dkt. #25, Exh. B.

Plaintiff claims that he was prepared to depart for the Court of Claims as scheduled on December 5, 2000, but was told that his trip had been cancelled. Dkt. #19, ¶¶ 22-24; Dkt. #19, Exh. C.

The Court of Claims dismissed plaintiff's claim based upon his failure to appear and prosecute the action. Dkt. #19, Exh. D.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Declaratory Judgment

The Declaratory Judgment Act provides, in relevant part, as follows:

In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any Court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

28 U.S.C. § 2201. Thus, the Act, "by its express terms vests a district court with discretion to determine whether it will exert jurisdiction over a proposed declaratory action or not." Dow Jones Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003). In exercising this discretion, the district court must determine whether the judgment will serve a useful purpose in clarifying or settling the legal issues involved and whether a judgment would finalize the controversy and offer relief from uncertainty. Dow Jones Co., 346 F.3d at 359; see also Continental Cas. Co. v. Coastal Sav. Bank, 977 F.2d 734, 737 (2d Cir. 1992); Broadview Chem. Co. v. Loctite Corp., 474 F.2d 1391, 1393 (2d Cir. 1973).

Declaratory judgment is inappropriate in the instant case because the issues to be resolved in this matter are factual, not legal, issues. The outcome of plaintiff's civil rights action will depend upon factual determinations regarding whether plaintiff informed Officer Elliott that he would not leave his cell to attend the court proceeding and why the refusal form was signed by Officer Elliott and dated December 4, 2000 when the form was not printed until December 5, 2000. Such assessments can not be made in the context of a declaratory judgment action. Moreover, any declaration with respect to the consequences of any potential factual findings would do nothing to finalize either this particular matter or the action as a whole, which involves an additional incident. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment is denied.

Subpoenas

Plaintiff's request for an order issuing subpoenas for defendants Cunningham and Elliott and for Sergeant Perry and the Inmate Records Coordinator is denied as premature. The Court will address plaintiff's request for witnesses during a pretrial conference prior to trial.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment is DENIED and plaintiff's request for witness subpoenas is DENIED as premature. Dkt. #22.

SO ORDERED.