Saunders v. Edward

Snes

eee

STATE OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

LETITIA JAMES DIVISION OF STATE COUNSEL

ATTORNEY GENERAL LITIGATION BUREAU

Writer’s Direct Dial: (212) 416-8037

January 26, 2024

Via ECF USDC SDNY

Hon. Nelson S. Roman DOCUMENT

United States District Court ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Southern District of New York DOC #:

300 Quarropas Street DATE FILED: 10/17/2024

White Plains, NY 10601 ——

Re: Saunders v. Edward, et al., 23 Civ. 6370 (NSR)

Dear Judge Roman:

I represent Defendants Edward Corley! and Don Venettozzi (“Defendants”) in the above

referenced action. Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Practices, I write to respectfully request that

the Court schedule a pre-motion conference to discuss the Defendants’ anticipated motion to

dismiss all counts against all Defendants.

I. Allegations of the Complaint

Plaintiff Tori Saunders (“Plaintiff”), an incarcerated individual currently housed at Collins

Correctional Facility, alleges that his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were

violated by both Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Corley, the Hearing

Officer presiding over the disciplinary hearing in connection with a Misbehavior Report from June

8, 2020, was not a fair and impartial decisionmaker and he did not provide Plaintiff with relevant

documentary evidence. (Dkt. No. 1, Complaint 9 16, 18, 23). As a result of this hearing, Plaintiff

alleges a loss of liberty, consisting of loss of good time credit and special confinement that imposed

an atypical hardship. (/d. at 25, Ex. B). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Corley’s actions

amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and violated Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment rights. (/d.

at § 27). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Venettozzi, then Director of Special Housing,

violated Plaintiffs due process rights by not ordering a re-hearing and affirming the

superintendent’s hearing. (Ud. at 4 19-20, 31, Ex. D). Plaintiff fails to state a claim against either

Defendant. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to lift the stay

in this action. The pro se Plaintiff is directed to

respond to this letter on or before November 5,

i — 2024, Defendants are directed to serve a copy of this

' Sued herein as “Corley Edward.” order by mail on pro se Plaintiff by November 18,

2024 and to file proof of service on the docket.

SO ORDERED:

Dated: October 17, 2024 amet

White Plains, NY C i

II. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Against Hearing Officer Corley

A. Plaintiff Is Collaterally Estopped from Asserting Due Process Arguments.

Prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed an Article 78 petition challenging the hearing over

which Defendant Corley presided. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 21). Among other things, Plaintiff alleged that he

was “denied his fundamental right to due process when he was improperly denied access to [the]

complete unusual incident report.” Plaintiff’s Article 78 Petition Memorandum of Law, p. 9, is

attached herein as Exhibit A (“Ex. A”).2 The petition was transferred to the Appellate Division,

Third Department, which held that Plain1F tiff was denied relevant documentary evidence when he

did not receive the correct unusual incident report. See Saunders v. Annucci, 207 A.D.3d 1014,

1015 (3d Dep’t 2022). The Appellate Division also held that all of Plaintiff’s charges, other than

that of refusing a direct order, were supported by substantial evidence, and that the “appropriate

remedy under the circumstances is remittal for a new hearing on those charges.” Id. Although the

Appellate Division does not explicitly use the phrase “due process,” in its decision, it necessarily

considered Plaintiff’s due process arguments related to the incident report in determining that a re-

hearing was appropriate. Plaintiff’s statement of facts in his Complaint are virtually identical to

his allegations in the Article 78 proceeding. (Compare Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 10-16 to Ex. A, ¶¶ 1-10).

Since “all of the issues central to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims are

identical to the issues presented in the Petition and were reviewed and necessarily decided by the

[Third] Department . . .,” Plaintiff’s claims “are thus precluded by the [Third] Department’s

determination of these issues.” Urena v. Annucci, No. 16-CV-9708 (NSR), 2018 WL 3863454, at

*5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2018). Plaintiff already had the opportunity to fully litigate his due process

argument and thus should be precluded from making the same argument here.

B. Plaintiff Fails to Advance Any Due Process Claims, Regardless of Collateral Estoppel.

Even if Plaintiff’s due process arguments were not subject to collateral estoppel, Plaintiff

has failed to show a violation of his due process rights under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.3

Disciplinary due process for incarcerated individuals only requires “some evidence,” and the2F

Second Circuit has held that even in cases where the Appellate Division, in an Article 78

proceeding, has not found substantial evidence, defendant testimony and corroborating evidence

sufficed as “some evidence” for due process. See Washington v. Gonyea, 538 Fed. Appx. 23, 25-

26 (2d Cir. 2013). In this case, the Appellate Division found that all but one of the charges were,

in fact, supported by substantial evidence. Saunders, 207 A.D.3d at 1015. Finally, violations of

due process “are reviewed for harmless error.” Banks v. Royce, No. 18-CV-4738 (NSR), 2020 WL

5038590, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2020). Plaintiff would have to show that “he was prejudiced

by the alleged procedural errors, in the sense that the errors affected the outcome of the hearing.”

2 The Court may consider Plaintiff’s Article 78 petition and the Appellate Division’s decision on a motion to dismiss

as “they [are] public records, and thus appropriate for judicial notice.” Williams v. New York City Housing Auth., 816

Fed.Appx. 532, 534 (2d Cir. 2020).

3 Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due process argument does not apply as Plaintiff was in state, not federal, custody. See

Smith v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., No. 15-CV-3455 (NSR), 2022 WL 17345055, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.

30, 2022) (“Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim does not apply here as there are no federal actors being sued.”).

28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005 ● Tel.: (212) 416-8610 ● Fax: (212) 416-6075 (Not For Service of Papers)

Id. As the other charges in Plaintiff’s report were supported by some evidence, he cannot show

that his alleged due process violation affected the outcome of the hearing.

C. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Plaintiff also fails to assert sufficient facts to support his claim that Defendant Corley’s

actions constituted cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

(Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 28). For a plaintiff “to establish that a prison official violated the Eighth Amendment,

(1) the alleged deprivation must, as an objective matter, be ‘sufficiently serious,’ and (2) [the

Defendant] must possess a ‘sufficiently culpable state of mind.’” Smith, 2022 WL 17345055, at

*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2022) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet

both the objective and subjective prongs. The only basis for Plaintiff’s claim is that he was

confined in special housing and lost certain privileges as a result. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 27-28). Being

confined to special housing alone “is not sufficient to establish the objective element of an Eighth

Amendment claim” with or without the attendant loss of privileges. Smith, 2022 WL 17345055, at

*4. Nor has Plaintiff shown that Defendant Corley had the requisite state of mind—that is, that

Defendant Corley “[knew of and disregarded] an excessive risk to [incarcerated individual] health

or safety that would result from his . . . act or omission.” Id.

III. Plaintiff Has Not Shown Defendant Venettozzi’s Personal Involvement

The only allegation Plaintiff has against Defendant Venettozzi is that he denied Plaintiff’s

request for discretionary review, which is insufficient to show personal involvement for Defendant

Venettozzi. See White v. Gutwein, No. 20-CV-4532 (NSR), 2022 WL 2987554, at *10 (S.D.N.Y.

July 28, 2022) (holding that a defendant affirming a hearing officer’s conclusions is “nothing more

than [the defendant] acting his supervisory role ‘in the prison chain of command’” and

“insufficient to establish personal involvement”).

IV. Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as Plaintiff has failed to “show[] facts

making out violation of a constitutional right.” Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149, 154

(2d Cir. 2013). Defendant Venettozzi is also entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has

not alleged that Defendant Venettozzi was personally involved in any constitutional violations.

See Spavone v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d 127, 135-36 (2d Cir. 2013).

V. Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request a pre-motion conference in anticipation of

their motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.4

3F

4 Defendants respectfully request that such conference be scheduled for a time other than between February 9 and

February 16, 2024 as Defendants’ counsel will be traveling for Lunar New Year.

28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005 ● Tel.: (212) 416-8610 ● Fax: (212) 416-6075 (Not For Service of Papers)

I thank the Court for its consideration of the application herein.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ S. Cynthia Luo

S.Cynthia Luo

Assistant Attorney General

Cynthia.Luo@ag.ny.gov

cc: Tori Saunders, pro se

DIN 17A1258

Collins Correctional Facility

P.O. Box 340

Collins, NY 14034-0340

(Via First Class Mail)

Tori Saunders, pro se

DIN 17A1258

Central NY Psychiatric Center

9005 Old River Road

P.O. Box 300

Marcy, NY 134035

(Via First Class M4F ail)

5 The DOCCS Incarcerated Individuals website lists Plaintiff as discharged from Collins Correctional Facility. Upon

information and belief after consulting with DOCCS, Plaintiff is temporarily housed at the Central NY Psychiatric

Center. Out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned has mailed a copy of this letter to both addresses.

28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005 ● Tel.: (212) 416-8610 ● Fax: (212) 416-6075 (Not For Service of Papers)

EXHIBIT A

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY

In the Matter of the Application of

TORI SAUNDERS, #17-A-1258,

Petitioner,

-against- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Index # 5997-20

ANTHONY ANNUCCI,

Respondent (s) .

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78

of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Supreme Court, Albany County,

HON. ROGER D. MCDONOUGH, ACTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE PRESIDING

APPEARANCES : TORI SAUNDERS

Petitioner Pro Se

This ex parte matter was referred to my attention at a

Part I Term, Supreme Court, at Albany County.

Upon reading of the Petition, sworn to the 28th day of

August, 2020;

LET respondents show cause at a Special Term of the

Supreme Court, to be held in and for the County of Albany, on

December 4, 2020, at the Albany County Courthouse, at Eagle and

Columbia Streets, Albany, New York 12207, at 9:30 o'clock in the

forenoon thereof WHY the relief requested in the Petition should

not be granted, it is

ORDERED, that service of a copy of this signed Order to

Show Cause, the petition, exhibits and any supporting affidavits,

by ordinary First Class Mail, upon each named respondent at their

respective address and upon the Attorney General for the State of

New York, at the Department of Law, State Capitol, Albany, New York

12224, on or before October 30, 2020, shall be deemed adequate.

It is petitioner's responsibility to:

(a) Serve his/her papers as authorized above or by

personal service. The grant of poor person relief does not

authorize the assignment or appointment of counsel, nor does it

authorize the Clerk's Office to provide photo-reproduction services

or service of papers on behalf of a pro se litigant, as these

person relief (CPLR §1102).

(b) Submit all papers upon which he is relying,

including the signed Order to Show Cause and the Petition, together

with two copies of a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) Form

and the original proof of service, to the Albany County Supreme

Court, Room 102, Albany County Courthouse, Albany, NY 12207 at

least eight (8) days prior to the return date.

Answers/or opposition papers are to be served at least

five (5) days before the return date.

IT IS SO ORDERED!

Dated: Se ddrt Zs Ze20

at Albany, New York

ACTING JUSTICE OF THE SURREME COURT

Hon, Roger D. McDonough, A.J.S.C.

Bet id Court of +he Strate of New York SEP 09 2020

cova ef ARibany x Combined Cours

| jn the Mater of the Application of -

“rori Sounders,

Pehtioner, ! ind No.

eM a | 6ngq-20

aAgoiNsr SG47 □

VERIFIED

Pho Anncci, , PETITION

Respondent .

| For @& Jodgme nt Porsvont

Arrcie 13 of the Civil

eam low and Rovies.

| Petitioner, Tori Sounders, respectfuily alleges as

| Follows :

| (1) At oul relevant +imes Stated herein, 1 Was & regiden

oF Stormville y New York, County of Dutchess , incarceratec

ot the Greenhaven Correctional Focility \ceated ot S44

Roote Zib thereof. | ="

(2) The Respondent is the Commissioners of the New York

State Department of Corrections , with his office locotec

GF i226 Washington Poence , in Aiboany, New York □□□□

(3), on june %$,2020 at approximately lo 130 pm y □□

Petitioner Was porticipating DM cecreaton on ane Gree

| Hoven Correctiona) Facittiy® GSH yard when he □□□□□

□ Commorion and Several correctional officers fan

Sowards him and Several other inmotes , and told 4

| Petitioner to place MS hands on the wall. Petihones

“wos piaced in mechanical restraints ad _oltimete

“piaced into the Specia) HNousing Unit

Jon or GQhovut Jone 94, 2020, Peththoner O □□□□□

Anith Oo HENHANIO epor alleding violations of ins

roles prohibiting Besar, Fighting , and Weapons posses

d Substance +he re + lineote tha

Aone 8.2020, in G3 orrections officer □□□□□

aes ifva6 Q_roof +o pserved GQ 7+Wo AN □□□□

aes +he ba-throom rags forther ObServed the inma

EX Chanaing osed Fist o We +he Pettioner ma

Sta bbina ofons, dropping a weapon 1N Wheh the

lo ey inmate pick Up Gincl +hre i ove Ahereo

Petrone alkecd awa

5) A+ Petitioner'? Heayina □ enced on Jone 24,2¢

Ls Hearing officer Corley, +he Petitoner regvestec

| mree Witnesses incloding inmatse murra and off

trae’ and Seraeant Polanco.

84 Penrioner'® nearing ne asked inmate □□□□□

relevant port (a) Did! assavrt you,

erve me with oa weapon, and (d) Did we have any

Petitioner asred Corrections officer Trams if he □□□

| nor of -+he misbehavior re par+ in Which he _

NA we red es edi ore hen astred hm o descr

and pe Clothing worn by hina 40 Which agis □□ □□

Ae Cig le. PACT PCO or) [= ed of Traae □□

| P CONNEC Oo AY idlea him hens = sined of Fic,

C035 eat i hied Not wskh We Eexceph of \nmote

ee . being Dlacecd in Mmechanica ain □□□ and

| Based on -rne fact of there being Qpproyvimose)

| O00 inmates iA the yord, Pettioner asxed Traqis

ie 4 a4 possipie tO misidenhfy him +O whieh

rag Sponded e did not Know. When asred b

□□ Petitioner if he oave identifying infer mation

| O 2a Dorung Ofticers, Wren Ss Stated that he □□□

eee rhink he neecdecl to as when the respons<.

‘orm Come, Petitioner was Seen Walking in th

iCypity. Pestti 2c Nc ohjected 36 officer

ADK hein Q OVlowed fo Ace “{OrM C4 & or

Tne last testifying winess was Sergeant Polar

(Petitioner Asved Polanco in pertinent relevant par

DO you yeca\\) a Figny iD Gan Yard boathroem

lune _, 2020, (b) AS the author of an Onvsval

Lacident report doted Sone 3, 2020, clo WOU ye □□□

erate Murray tering you he was oassaurred but □

Dnowexer defending himseif, and (ce) Do you recant int

HW. ep SSobh na LOD Ohservved = extng ne

\ nro n? "FG. 6 Que 1On Polanco 3+ od i

3) \heina Old bu KW ASS Sts, 2 2yqeant

lei ving Beara gee cy thar no body □□

too--aae avaiable and lox eusted , the Petjior

lin ONerno+ 4+ west video From the yoof+o

tha was USE oO mis hearna Sox pyidi na) i 2

eceixved bwe amera, toobage of the incident,

| -GH- 3YQ- male ao Petitioner's nmnotd an August

20, 2020

rther more > pite Fe QvestS +0 \Spoth □ assis

| Well GS Gt Wis hearing , for Fou onesval

iclent Qo 1 idling, unjory Ports Perwitioner

a) Gven bi ms Assistant a report Fro i areh □

| 2020 wmecia LC b) clenied and Ya oy □□□□ Ss

| id jn bhi efense effort w

XI Submit that the evidence presented , and

+he testimony taken at my Diecipiinary hearing did net

provide On adequote bosis for the hearing officer's

determination +hat 1 committed inmote infractions .

In thie Article 18 preceeding , 1 reqvest thet this

Court Conclude +hat the determinohom by Respondent

Was arbitrary and Capricious > UNSvupperted by Sebstantial

evidence, and contrary +o law.

No previovS pplication has been made For the retief

requested.

Wherefore, 1 respecifFoily request an order

transferring nese proceedings to the Appellate Division

for review of the Subsiantkal evidence issve in accordand

with CPLR 871504 (g) ond O& jodgment annviing the

determinosion of the Responcent , and Gor Such other and

Further relief aS this Court deems just and proper.

| Tori Saunders

Supreme Court of the Strode oF New York = | —

Cooniy- Chabon» Sar) ee

Sa Be Oe es oe SEP 0.9 2020

| im the moder of +he Appiicahon of eos,

i ; L —_—__ Combined Courts

Tori Saonders, □□□ □□

Petitionef, '

. -Atoq07nGt-

2 as

=) Vroex Noo

Anthony Annucci , Commissioner of

.

NNS Department cf Corrections;

Respondent,

, \

a dedgment pursvant to Article 73

. i

of the Civil Practice Law ond Rules,

Petitioner's memorandum of

Law.

| “ Respecthysly Aubmitted,

eo Lyn. ee,

Tor’ Saunders _

Petitioner , Pro Se

|

3

| Memorandum of Low ;

|r. Petitioner was denied his Fundamentel rignt +o Due

Process when he was improperly denied access +o

| te _Compiete onusval incident répomrs Veo Ch. Cans.

| | Amend. Vv, XIV.

| I+ 1S Standard poiicy in the Correction sysiem shod an

| Unveval Incident report is prepored Whenever an inmate orn

| inmate ASSavIt Cccurs. The report 1S required +o contasn grea

deta Concerning +he incident in quesien, as set Forth in

“tne Directive of the Deportmenr.

| 1+ 16 Undisputed that AN Unvuseal Jncident report

prepared Concerning the incident in Qvestion. Forthermor

' Seeh report i> not confidential >, ond o¢ least a + edocied

version con be cbtaned through a Freedom of Information

request. é

T NYCRR 254. kb (c) Specificaiy provides thes an inmate

| Sioa be aitlowed to Submit relevant docomentary evidence

“ox the hearing. That Section 1 in Compliance with she

Supreme Couft- decision in Wolff v. MeDonnell, His US.

1539, 94 SeCh AWS,

‘ee |

| The vunoseaj incident report, by tS Very Nature ,

a Comprehensive account oF the entire incident in

QveSnon incieding the events teading vp te iF, the □□□□□□

ineident itseik 5 and the TESS thereof, incloding any □□□□

losed 40 SvLbdce the inmates and +he injuries Susioined

‘og the porticipants . Aimost ail of the adverse yeSstimeny

lok Petitioner's hearing cleaat @pecifically With the 1S560es

Covered by the Unosvai Incident report. Although the

[ovthors of the report Were Caled to testify at the

| hearing, i+ iS entirely possibie thot the Stotements of

the UkINESSES 5 AS Set forth in the OUnoeval Incident

“report, wovid differ From the testimony py esented ot □

the Necving. Since the ieee S presented at the □□□□

| presented one of Credibiity , +he intredection inte eviden

| oF the Fort vnvsval incident report AS requested by th

| Petitioner Covld have been extremely heipful +o the

hearing officer in fesowing discrepencieS pointed by

Petitioner, in any event, Certainiy no reason □□□

been SHown Why the Petitioner Covid not hove been

carpe +0 have +he oti veport OD requested wntroduce

, Lint evidence and received by him.

i

| This Court Shevid Find that: Pesitioner'> doe

“proces® rightS were violated oy the Faitore +0 predoce

the Fou Dnosoal Incident report.

Petitioner was denied adequate employee assistance

in Wis disciptinary hearing When in hant oF being Charge

with assoavit, Figniing, and weapons possesion , he Was

denied access to injury reports ofter requesting +nem

From his empioyee assiatant. See Rupnarine Vv. Prack,

A.D. 10b2 Choiding +nat “Although record refiected

+hod inmate assisiance form requested the injury reper:

r+ did not reveal that he Was either provided With the

report or informed thabit did not exist). See caso □□□□□

vy. Coughlin, 193 A.D. 2d 387 ( holding thet "inmate was

ented +0 be Suppiied with incident reports reloted □□

Other inmates, to extent they Concerned incident in

QoeSrion and Forthermore referred to inmate® acthvities,

Absent Showing +hat disciosvre Wovld be ondviy hozordov:

institutional Sofety or correctional goois’), Tne New

Yori State Court of AppeaiS heid in Henry _v. Fischer,

2% NY3d 1135 +had “inmote was improperiy denied

lrequests fer Specific deeoments” and reversed determina

OF Quilt. Forthermore , “neither inmate misbehavior

report nor idenkFication FEStimony provided Substantial

levidence needed +o Support determination" a+ the

Pettione'® hearing. Hutchinson _v. Covgniin , 220 A.D.2d

WIG, 63) NYS. Fez ( Petition granted and determinatker

Gannviled.

TI. Petitioner was improperly denied his rignt +o

Confrontation , Wien the Qother of his misbehavior

ae Was repeatedly Olewed a Feign NON-

tecawed elements in his authored repo (i. U.S.C.A.

Conet. Amend. Vo |

in Brown _v. lyin, @ case going hand in

hond with the case at bar, the Appetote Division,

Fourth Department Unani meovaly annotied on tee □□

the hearing determination When Foond that □□□□□

Conviction For: violodien of Fignting role WAS Not Supportec

by Sobstantiol evidence.

Specifically > the Court hetd +hod "+he misbehavic:

report retied vpon by the heaving officer dees not

Support the cletermination beeause Critical Facts □

incorperated in the report Were not Knadn personally

by the officer Who prepared and Signed the report.

Brown Vv. lrvin, 119 AD.2d loT1, 530 NYS 2d 903.

The Hearing Officers Determination oF Quilt

With respect to role viciahons prohibiting

| ASSaQvit, Fighting ) and WEAPONS Posse sion were

| Not Supported by Sobstontiol evidence. □

|

| Substantial evidence did not Support the

cers Officer's determination of guilt +o +he Charges

of assavit WeEaApens possession, and | Fj gniing 5 and a

moter of low and logico) Consistency , the

| Findings most be annviled. N.Y. Comp - Codes. R. and Reo:

44.7, 270.2 (8)(14)G) , 270.2(8)0)0), See Porter v.

| Annveci, 173 1355 (acid) (hoiding +hod Substantial

evidence did not Support determination thot inmate

vioilo+ed inmate role prohibiting possession OF a weapon

| Carretaro VY. Cougniin, 153 Adzd Wk Choiding guitty

violations of ASSavit and possesion of Weapen Cannot

Stond). See aso D'Antvsno v, Graham, leo AD ad 14;

Brown =v. iyvin, 179 Abdzd 107) , respectwely,

No liberal reading oF the evidence present

Gt the. Pehhoner Shearing “wovid Soppor+ a determine

oF guilt and Sveh findings Were arbitrary and

Capric ous,

| V. Cencivsion

| Based on the foregoing, the toner

Saunders respecifeily Submits to tHS Court

| thos he 16 enthed +o the retief Sought in that

ene court Should Find a direct cause Shown and

| Prejudice derived , and that his Determination of □□□□□

|Shovid be annoiled, and expunged From his institotiona

| record,

| Respectfoily Svlomilted,

| Doted: Avaust 30, 2020 es

. 4 “ “Tort Bouncers

Pettioner , Pro Se

|

| Ver Pion:

-—peECEIVE

Siote of New. Yor K) | SEP 09 2020

County of Dutchess) S.s. | _Albaoy County

| Combined Courts

bo eri Saunders, have read the Foregoing

Petition and Know the Contents therecf, and +he. Sa

trove +o +he best of my Knowledge , except aS +0

| moiters Stated upon information and belief, and □□ -

+nose Moaters ji believe +hem to be troe.

)

Sworn. to before me

| this 22 doy of August, 2020.. <

| Tori. Saunders

: Petitioner, Pro St

Notary Publica

AY Pus

AP EON TNS.

) Se

sore | *

+ (aor)

ON 6, 1s &

9 RONK GO □□□

€or new

)

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

ISAURA TORRES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares under penalty of perjury as

follows:

That on January 26, 2024, in this action, I served a copy of Defendants’ Letter Motion

for a Pre-Motion Conference dated January 26, 2024 on Tori Saunders, plaintiff pro se, at the

following address designated in the docket of this case:

Tori Saunders, pro se

DIN 17A1258

Collins Correctional Facility

P.O. Box 340

Collins, NY 14034-0340

The DOCCS Incarcerated Individuals website lists Plaintiff as discharged from Collins

Correctional Facility. Upon information and belief after consulting with DOCCS, Plaintiff is

temporarily housed at the Central NY Psychiatric Center. Out of an abundance of caution, the

undersigned has also mailed a copy of this letter to the following address:

Tori Saunders, pro se

DIN 17A1258

Central NY Psychiatric Center

9005 Old River Road

P.O. Box 300

Marcy, NY 13403

by depositing a true and correct copy thereof, properly enclosed in a pre-paid wrapper, in a

post-office box regularly maintained by the government of the United States.

Torres

Legal Assistant II

Executed on January 26, 2024