# Saunders v. Edward

> District Court, S.D. New York · October 17, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10663470

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** October 17, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10663470

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10663470. Public record. Not legal advice.