text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
May 19, 2010
LEROY DORSEY, PLAINTIFF,v.BRIAN FISHER; DALE ARTUS; RACETTE; AND T. LAVALLEY, DEFENDANTS.
DECISION and ORDER
I. Background
Plaintiff Leroy Dorsey commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint. Dkt. No. 1. By Decision and Order of this Court filed on December 15, 2009 ("December Order"), the Court found that Dorsey's Complaint failed to set forth facts plausibly suggesting that any of the defendants were personally involved with the alleged violation of Dorsey's constitutional rights or that any of Dorsey's constitutional rights were violated.Dkt. No. 15 at 11. In light of his pro se status, Dorsey was afforded an opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Id. at 15. Presently before the Court is plaintiff's amended complaint. Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiff has again named Fisher, Artus, Racette, and LaValley as defendants as well as twenty-one new defendants, many of whom are John/Jane Doe defendants.*fn1 Id. at 3, 4, 7. For the reasons set forth below, the amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Section 1983.
II. Legal standards
Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, "(2) . . . the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that -- . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."*fn2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Likewise, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
Additionally, when reviewing a complaint, the Court may also look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of this Rule "is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable." Hudson v. Artuz, No. 95 CIV. 4768, 1998 WL 832708, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1998) (quoting Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (McAvoy, C.J.) (other citations omitted)).
A court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). While the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not 'show[n]'-'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2)). Rule 8 "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Thus, a pleading that only "tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement" will not suffice. Id. (internal citations and alterations omitted). Allegations which "are so vague as to fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them" are subject to dismissal. Sheehy v. Brown, No. 08-0102-cv, 2009 WL 1762856, at *1 (2d Cir. Jun. 23, 2009).
III. Summary of Amended Complaint
In his amended complaint, Dorsey alleges that beginning with his arrival at Clinton from November 2008 to 2010, Fisher and all named defendants violated plaintiff's civil and constitutional rights and his rights under Federal and state laws and state rules. Dkt. No. 17 at 8. Defendants falsified records; retaliated against plaintiff; denied plaintiff accessories for his breathing machine and daily medications, as well as state clothes, cosmetics, and legal personal supplies; and stole his property. Id.
Dorsey alleges that defendants Furneau, Keanan, Hicks were supervisors in charge of E-Block and allowed the correctional officers - specifically defendants John Doe A-Officer, Defire, Terry, Hardy, Farrow, D. Lucia, Beeman, John Doe, 3-11 (1-11-10); John Doe 3-11 (1-12-10); and John Doe, 3-11 (1-9 and 10-10) - to "commit numerous civil rights violations"*fn3 and state and federal crimes, including federal mail stealing and the "Crime of First Degree Murder-Att. Murder" on Dorsey. Id. at 10. Dorsey claims that the attempted murder occurred on July 13, 2009 when the E-Block defendants put "D.N.A. - Infected Body Fluid" in Dorsey's food. Id. Dorsey claims that the aforesaid E-Block defendants used their "Snitch Informer" and "Four 4 Inmate Porter's - Some Homosexuals" to violate Dorsey's rights. Id. After eating the poisoned food, Dorsey's mouth became swollen with sores and the "Medication Nurse - Escort C.O." refused to provide Dorsey with medical emergency sick call. Id.
Dorsey alleges that the defendants used inmate porters, who have been released to immigration for deportation, to pass rumors, lies, and personal information about Dorsey. Id. Defendants also let these inmate porters into Dorsey's cell when he was not there to steal Dorsey's property, plant weapons in Dorsey's cell, and infect Dorsey's food, and rewarded them for their actions against Dorsey. Id. at 10-11. Dorsey claims that the actions of the inmate porters stopped when Dorsey was confined to his cell for 24 hours. Id. at 11.
Defendants on E-Block during the 7 to 3 shift purposely opened Dorsey's cell so he could be assaulted as he slept by the "Loyal C.O. Inmates." Id. at 11. Dorsey claims that the defendants whom he collectively refers to as defendants "E-T"*fn4 are "Responsible" for the aforesaid acts. Id. at 11. Dorsey also states that defendants E-T "stole 2 vendor packages"*fn5 from Dorsey. Id. at 11.
Dorsey alleges that defendant LaValley is a "criminal." Dkt. No. 17 at 12. Dorsey complains that the Court should have, as soon as Dorsey filed this action, planted federal undercover agents "near" Dorsey to "catch" and "record" the "N.Y.S." cover-up of defendants' continuing violations of Dorsey's constitutional rights. Id.
Dorsey claims that defendant Commissioner Fisher was personally involved in wrongdoing against Dorsey because in October 2006, while Dorsey was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Fisher denied Dorsey the right to participate in Family Reunion Program visits and that the denial was in retaliation for "petitioning Fisher" for entry into the program. Dkt. No. 17 at 12-13. Dorsey also alleges that Fisher illegally changed the rules of the Family Reunion Program to exclude Dorsey from the program. Id. Dorsey also seems to allege that after Fisher became acting commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services in 2007, Fisher failed to address Dorsey's letters of complaint regarding problems that Dorsey was having at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and claimed that Fisher's response was always the same -"Let the Prison ... Investigate." Id. at 13.
On December 15, 2009, defendant Russell issued Dorsey a false misbehavior report and "keeplocked" Dorsey. Dkt. No. 17 at 15. Dorsey claims that the false misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for "petitioning." Id. at 17. Defendant Russell also lied at the subsequent disciplinary hearing. Id. Dorsey alleges that on December 20, 2008, after his property was "stolen", he asked defendant Artus to send a "search team" but Artus refused the request. Dkt. No. 17 at 14. Dorsey states that the next day he realized why Artus would not send a search team because all of the E-Block cells were full of stolen property and he alleges that some of the stolen property was his because he "was hearing [his] cassette tapes." Id. Dorsey appears to allege that inmate cells on E-Block were opened so that the inmates could be assaulted while inmate porters stole their property. Id. In 2009, Dorsey stopped Artus when he was touring E-Block and told him about all of the stolen property and what was happening on E-Block, but Artus did nothing about it, and "never walked toured again." Id. Plaintiff then faced more staff set-ups and was moved to another block to "hinder prosecution" of getting the "thousands" of legal documents out to courts by his deadlines. Id. On December 25, 2009, defendant Artus "worked" as an officer as part of a job swap. Dkt. No. 17 at 15. While Artus was touring, Dorsey complained to him about legal mail that was "not confirmed mailed to the court", but Artus merely told Dorsey to write to him about it. Id. Defendant Artus said he did not know Dorsey, which was a "lie." Id.
On December 29, 2009, a hearing was held regarding the false misbehavior report issued by defendant Russell; Dorsey was found guilty of the charges based upon "lies" on the tape and because of "retaliation" by defendant Artus. Id. Dorsey claims that Artus's retaliation was not over. Id. Dorsey alleges that after his hearing, officers locked Dorsey in a "small confined shower" for thirty minutes while four young officers "trashed" his cell, threw away legal mail, and took his breathing machine accessories, daily medications, cosmetics, legal supplies, pens, and tape. Id. at 15-16.
Dorsey alleges that during either breakfast or lunch on a weekend, Dorsey tried to speak to the Deputy Superintendent of Security, who was in the cafeteria at the time, about library call-outs on weekends but "the Escort C.O." said "No", pulled Dorsey to the side and threatened him, saying he did not care about Dorsey's court deadlines. Id. at 15.
Dorsey alleges that defendant Racette is the son of a former Clinton Correctional Facility warden and makes tours of E-Block, and has received letters from Dorsey, but does nothing to help Dorsey. Dkt. No. 17 at 16. Defendant Racette is like his father and lets officers beat and kill inmates then covers up the crimes. Id. Defendant Racette "is also behind" the violations of Dorsey's constitutional rights. Id. Defendant Hardy toured Dorsey's block one day with Racette and told Racette that Dorsey was going to the Special Housing Unit. Id.
Dorsey alleges that defendant LaValley is the "son of past warden" and that his father was apparently involved with "bodies found." Dkt. No. 17 at 16. Defendant LaValley was the first head official to greet Dorsey in November 2008 and promised a "fresh start", but when Dorsey was moved to E-Block, "trouble" began. Id. In July, defendant LaValley signed off on a "stolen tape notice" which he knew was false, "which is a felony charge." Id. at 16-17.
Defendant Recore violated Dorsey's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by releasing some personal information about Dorsey which went from officers to inmates in E-Block. Dkt. No. 17 at 17. Dorsey also claims that defendant Recore "eavesdropped" on Dorsey's legal conference call to a Judge and an attorney general. Id.
While not entirely clear, it appears that Dorsey alleges that defendant Derkin allowed defendant Russell to falsely accuse Dorsey of misbehavior. Dkt. No. 17 at 17. Dorsey alleges that defendant Defire was the property draft officer at Clinton and that when Dorsey was drafted to Clinton, some of his draft bags had been opened and some of his property stolen. Id. at 18.
Dorsey claims that between 2008 and 2010, as a result of the foregoing, he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, denied due process and equal protection, denied the opportunity to "petition the government," purposely contaminated with "infected D.N.A." and food poisoning, and denied medical attention after his face and mouth became swollen inside and out. Dkt. No. 17 at 18. Dorsey claims that no security was called to investigate his attempted murder and the crime was covered-up. Id. Dorsey seeks substantial monetary relief and transfer to Fishkill Correctional Facility. Dkt. No. 17 at 19. Dorsey also wants the Court to "take away" defendants' immunities and fifth amendment protections because they are criminals involved in "Enterprise Corruption." Id.
IV. Review of Amended Complaint
In reviewing Dorsey's amended complaint, the Court recognizes that it must construe pro se complaints liberally. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). Even after allowing for due deference to Dorsey's pro se status, Dorsey's conclusory allegations are insufficient to meet the standards set forth in either Ashcroft or Twombly. Dorsey's amended complaint also fails to give defendants "fair notice" of the grounds upon which Dorsey's claims are based. Significantly, the amended complaint's failure to provide such notice followed a district court order that, in dismissing Dorsey's original complaint, explained its deficiencies and provided Dorsey with an opportunity to cure the defects. The order also advised Dorsey that failure to do so would result in dismissal. Dorsey has not complied with the Court's directions set forth in the December Order. The amended complaint contains a litany of conclusory statements which amount to nothing more than legal conclusions and hollow allegations that all of the defendants conspired to harm Dorsey by stealing his property, attempting to murder him, retaliating against him, and denying him due process and medical care. See generally Dkt. No. 17.
The Court finds that Dorsey's allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and in many instances are frivolous, both legally and factually, and the amended complaint is therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(b). Any vague claims that can be discerned from the amended complaint are discussed below.
A. Personal Involvement
To state a viable claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant, while acting under color of state law, deprived him of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or by the laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under section 1983. Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield, 950 F.2d 880, 885 (2d Cir. 1991) and McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 934 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1087, 98 S.Ct. 1282 (1978)). In order to prevail on a section 1983 cause of action against an individual, a plaintiff must show some tangible connection between the constitutional violation alleged and that particular defendant. See Bass v. Jackson, 790 F.2d 260, 263 (2d Cir. 1986). Any complaint that fails to allege personal involvement is "fatally defective on its face." Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883, 886 (2d Cir.1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
A supervisor cannot be liable for damages under section 1983 solely by virtue of being a supervisor; there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Richardson v. Goord, 347 F.3d 431, 435 (2d Cir. 2003); Wright, 21 F.3d at 501. Vague and conclusory allegations that a supervisor has failed to train or properly monitor the actions of subordinate employees will not suffice to establish the requisite personal involvement and support a finding of liability. Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 300 (2d Cir. 2009) ("To the extent that [a] complaint attempts to assert a failure-to-supervise claim . . . [that claim is insufficient where] it lacks any hint that [the supervisor] acted with deliberate indifference to the possibility that his subordinates would violate [plaintiff's] constitutional rights."). Culpability on the part of a supervisory official for a civil rights violation can, however, be established in one of several ways, including when that individual 1) has directly participated in the challenged conduct; 2) after learning of the violation through a report or appeal, has failed to remedy the wrong; 3) created or allowed to continue a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred; 4) was grossly negligent in managing the subordinates who caused the unlawful event; or 5) failed to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring. Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995); Wright, 21 F.3d at 501; Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319, 323-324 (2d Cir. 1986).
1. Defendant Fisher
Dorsey alleges that after defendant Fisher became acting commissioner, he failed to respond to Dorsey's complaints and his response was always to let the prison investigate and deal with its own situation. Dkt. No. 17 at 13. These allegations fail to demonstrate the personal involvement of Fisher in any wrongdoing against Dorsey. An allegation that an official ignored a prisoner's letter of protest or a request for an investigation of allegations contained in the letter is insufficient to hold that official liable for the alleged violations. Johnson v. Wright, 234 F. Supp. 2d 352, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Greenwaldt v. Coughlin, 93 Civ. 6551, 1995 WL 232736, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 1995); see also Boddie v. Morganthau, 342 F. Supp. 2d 193, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (Even if a supervisory official ignores an individual's letter, this fact alone is insufficient to establish personal responsibility).
2. Defendants Furneau, Keanan, Hicks
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Furneau, Keanan, and Hicks, as supervisors of E-Block, allowed correctional officers on E-Block to violate plaintiff's civil rights and commit crimes including mail stealing and attempted murder. Construed liberally, Dorsey alleges that Furneau, Keanan, and Hicks failed to properly supervise their subordinates. Here, Dorsey provides nothing but his bare assertion that Furneau, Keanan, and Hicks allowed the correctional officers in their charge to violate Dorsey's civil rights. Dkt. No. 17 at 10.
Even under the liberal "notice pleading standard" ... a Section 1983-based complaint must still allege particular facts indicating that an individual defendant was personally involved in the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights; mere "bald assertions and conclusions of law" do not suffice. Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996). A complaint that essentially regurgitates the relevant "personal involvement" standard, without offering any facts indicating that, or how, an individual defendant in a supervisory role was personally involved in a constitutional violation, cannot withstand dismissal.
Davis v. County of Nassau, 355 F. Supp. 2d 668, 676-77 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). Dorsey's conclusory allegations against defendants Furneau, Keanan, or Hicks fail to allege any claim against these defendants on the basis of supervisory liability or otherwise.
3. Sgt. John Doe (Escort to OMH), OMH Chief Berman, and OMH Jane Doe
Dorsey includes Sgt. John Doe (Escort to OMH), OMH Chief Berman, and OMH Jane Doe as defendants in the caption of his complaint and in the listing of defendants but the complaint does not assert allegations of wrongdoing by them. "Dismissal is appropriate where a defendant is listed in the caption, but the body of the complaint fails to indicate what the defendant did to the plaintiff." Cipriani v. Buffardi, No. 9:06-CV-889,2007 WL 607341, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2007) (citing Gonzalez v. City of New York, No. 97 CIV. 2246, 1998 WL 382055, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 9, 1998); Crown v. Wagenstein, No. 96 CIV. 3895, 1998 WL 118169, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.16, 1998) (mere inclusion of warden's name in complaint insufficient to allege personal involvement); (Taylor v. City of New York, 953 F.Supp. 95, 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (same)). Because Dorsey has failed to allege any personal involvement on the part of Sgt. John Doe (Escort to OMH), OMH Chief Berman, and OMH Jane Doe, they are dismissed as defendants.
B. Failure to State a Claim
1. Conspiracy
Dorsey seems to allege that he has been the victim of a massive conspiracy by the New York State Department of Correctional Services and its employees, including all of the defendants named herein and that the conspiracy amounted to "Enterprise Corruption." See generally Dkt. No. 17. Dorsey alleges the defendants' criminal conduct has been covered-up. Id.
A conspiracy claim under Section 1983 must allege that: (1) an agreement existed between two or more state actors to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury on plaintiff and (2) an overt act was committed in furtherance of that goal. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 324-25 (2d Cir. 2002). Vague and conclusory allegations that defendants have engaged in a conspiracy must be dismissed. Ciambriello, 292 F.3d at 325; see also Sommer v. Dixon, 709 F.2d 173, 175 (2d Cir.1983) ("A complaint containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations of conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand a motion to dismiss."); Brown v. City of Oneonta, 106 F.3d 1125, 1133 (2d Cir. 1997) (complaints containing only conclusory, vague or general allegations of a conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights do not state a claim for relief). Moreover, a Section 1983 conspiracy claim must not only allege a conspiracy, but also the "actual deprivation of constitutional rights." Romer v. Morgenthau,119 F. Supp. 2d 346, 363-64 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)(citing Malsh v. Austin, 901 F. Supp. 757, 765 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). "Thus, if a plaintiff cannot sufficiently allege a violation of his rights, it follows that he cannot sustain a claim of conspiracy to violate those rights." See id.
Dorsey alleges in conclusory fashion that all of the defendants were involved in a conspiracy against him. Dorsey does not assert any plausible facts giving rise to a conspiracy, but instead makes vague and shocking statements that defendants tried to murder him by poisoning his food with infected DNA, stealing his property, releasing his personal information to everyone on E-Block, and ignoring his complaints about, and covering up, all of the aforesaid wrongdoing. Plaintiff has not alleged, except in conclusory fashion, that a conspiracy existed or that any meeting of the minds occurred between any of the defendants. Moreover, many of the alleged conspiratorial acts, i.e. stealing Dorsey's property or not responding to his letters of complaint, do not rise to the level of constitutional violations. Additionally, many of the allegations raised in the amended complaint in support of a conspiracy are wholly unbelievable. For example, Dorsey claims that (1) inmate porters laced his food with infected DNA or infected bodily fluids at the direction of DOCS officials and that DOCS supervisors rewarded them for doing so and (2) his entire prison block was full of stolen property that was taken from inmates by inmate porters at the behest of DOCS officials.
The amended complaint does not contain any allegations to support a "plausible" conspiracy claim involving any of the defendants. "[A]lthough a plaintiff does not need to provide detailed factual allegations, the allegations in the complaint must be 'enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Flores v. Levy, No. 07-CV-3753, 2008 WL 4394681, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2008) (citing Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965). Additionally, many of the allegations raised in the amended complaint in support of a conspiracy are wholly unbelievable. For example, Dorsey claims that (1) inmate porters laced his food with infected DNA or infected bodily fluids at the direction of DOCS officials and that DOCS supervisors rewarded them for doing so and (2) his entire prison block was full of stolen property that was taken from inmates by inmate porters at the behest of DOCS officials.
The conspiracy claims are wholly conclusory and, as such, are insufficient even at the pleading stage to state a claim for relief pursuant to Section 1983.
2. Defendant Artus
Dorsey alleges that defendant Artus failed to investigate his complaints of stolen property or mail; failed to send a "search team" to look for the stolen property, in an apparent attempt to cover up a massive theft of inmate property on E-Block; and retaliated against Dorsey. Dkt. No. 17 at 14-16.
Even if true, the fact that Artus ignored Dorsey's complaints regarding theft of his property and other violations of Dorsey's rights by various staff at Clinton Correctional Facility is insufficient to state a claim against Artus. See Woods v. Goord, No. 01 Civ. 3255(SAS), 2002 WL 731691, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.23, 2002) (collecting cases) (For purposes of Section 1983, personal involvement cannot be established based on the receipt of a letter or grievance.); Swindell v. Supple, No. 02 Civ. 3182RWS, 2005 WL 267725, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.3, 2005) ("[C]orrespondence to and from [DOCS Commissioner] Goord does not demonstrate [his] personal involvement."); Atkins v. County of Orange, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1233 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("[A]llegations that an official ignored a prisoner's letter" are insufficient to impose liability under Section 1983.).
As to Dorsey's claim that Artus retaliated against him, Courts must approach claims of retaliation "'with skepticism and particular care' because 'virtually any adverse action taken against a prisoner by a prison official - even those otherwise not rising to the level of a constitutional violation - can be characterized as a constitutionally proscribed retaliatory act.'" Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 352 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992 (2002)); see also Colon, 58 F.3d at 872 (courts should "examine prisoners' claims of retaliation with skepticism and particular care" given "the ease with which claims of retaliation may be fabricated."). In order to allege a viable retaliation claim, a plaintiff must advance "non-conclusory" allegations establishing:
(1) that the speech or conduct at issue was protected, (2) that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected speech [or conduct] and the adverse action.
Davis, 320 F.3d at 352 (quoting Dawes, 239 F.3d at 492). Recognizing the possibilities for abuse with respect to retaliation claims, the Circuit has insisted "on a higher level of detail in pleading them." Gill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192, 194 (2d Cir. 1987). "[A] complaint of retaliation that is wholly conclusory can be dismissed on the pleadings alone." Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996).
Reading the amended complaint generously, Dorsey may allege that Artus retaliated against him because of Dorsey's complaints to Artus concerning staff misconduct. Since the filing of prison grievances is a constitutionally protected activity, Dorsey may meet the first prong of the retaliation test. See Graham, 89 F.3d at 80; see also Franco v. Kelly, 854 F.2d 584, 589 (2d Cir. 1988) (prisoner's have the right to petition for redress of grievances). Dorsey alleges that he was found guilty of charges at a disciplinary hearing on December 29, 2009 because of "Dale Artus Retaliation" and then alleges that he realized that Artus's retaliation was "Not Over" when later that day his cell was ransacked by "4 Young Officers." Dkt. No. 17 at 15. Dorsey has not plausibly alleged any causal connection between Dorsey's complaints to Artus and the conduct of the remaining defendants or the "4 Young Officers", or any details regarding how Artus retaliated against him. Dorsey's allegations of retaliation by Artus are wholly conclusory and lack sufficient facts to satisfy the requirement for a "higher level of detail" required by the Second Circuit, see Gill, 824 F.2d at 194, therefore Dorsey has failed to allege a plausible retaliation claim against Artus.
3. Defendant Fisher
Dorsey alleges that in October 2006, while Fisher was Superintendent of Sing Sing, Fisher denied Dorsey entry into the Family Reunion Program. Dkt. No. 17 at 12-13. Dorsey fails to state a claim against Fisher in this regard. See Leevon v. Goord, No. 99-CV-6208, 2003 WL 22384787, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2003) (inmate's liberty interests were not implicated by the forfeiture of his participation in the Family Reunion Program); see also Gatson v. Selsky, No. 94-CV-292, 1997 WL 159258, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Apr.4, 1997) (inmate's loss of Family Reunion Program visits does not give rise to liberty interest). Dorsey also claims that Fisher denied him entry into the program "in Retaliation for Petitioning Fisher, et al, Sing Sing." Dkt. No. 17 at 13. These wholly conclusory or vague statements of retaliation by Fisher do not satisfy the requirement for a "higher level of detail" required by the Second Circuit. See Gill, 824 F.2d at 194; see also Section IV.B.2, supra.
4. Eighth Amendment medical claim
Dorsey alleges that a "Medication Nurse" and "Escort C.O." denied him adequate medical treatment when his food was infected or poisoned, causing his mouth to become swollen inside and out with sores. Dkt. No. 17 at 10. Dorsey also claims that "4 Young Officers" threw away his "Breathing Machine Accessories" and "3 Daily Medications." Id. at 16. Apart from being unable to identify the defendants involved by name, the complaint fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment as it fails to allege that any defendant was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need of Dorsey.
A prisoner may allege an Eighth Amendment claim arising out of inadequate medical care; to do so, the prisoner must allege "deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Negligence by physicians, even amounting to malpractice, does not become a constitutional violation merely because the plaintiff is an inmate; claims of malpractice or disagreement with treatment are not actionable under § 1983. Murphy v. Grabo, No. 94-CV-1684, 1998 WL 166840, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 1998) (Pooler, D.J.). Dorsey's conclusory allegation that an unidentified Medication Nurse and escort correctional officer refused Dorsey access to emergency sick call on one occasion fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the Eighth Amendment. See Brown v. Sheridan, 894 F. Supp. 66, 71 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)("[O]ne isolated failure to provide medical treatment to a prisoner, without more, is generally not actionable" unless the "surrounding circumstances suggest a degree of deliberateness, rather than inadvertence, in the failure to render meaningful treatment.") Dorsey has made no factual, non-conclusory allegations to suggest any degree of deliberateness on the part of the unidentified nurse or the escort officer, especially in light of the implausibility of the underlying claim that he was deliberately poisoned with infected DNA. Therefore Dorsey has failed to allege a constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment against these defendants.
5. Defendant LaValley
Dorsey alleges that Defendant LaValley is a "criminal" and seems to allege that LaValley's father - a former superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility -was a murderer or somehow connected with "bodies found." Dkt. No. 17 at 12, 16. Dorsey alleges that LaValley made a false statement, "which is a felony charge." Id. at 16-17. Besides being decidedly vague and inflammatory, the allegations that defendant LaValley engaged in criminal conduct or made a false statement do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and therefore Dorsey has failed to state a claim against defendant LaValley.
6. Theft of Personal Property
Dorsey alleges that various items of his personal property were stolen. Dkt. No. 17 at 11, 14-16. Dorsey also alleges that defendant Defire, the property draft officer, may have been responsible for opening and stealing property from Dorsey's draft bags. Id. at 18. Construed liberally, Dorsey may be alleging that he was deprived of his property without due process. As an initial matter, Dorsey does not clearly allege which of the twenty-five defendants named in his amended complaint were actually responsible for the theft of his property from his cell.Dorsey merely alleges that the defendants allowed inmate porters into his cell to steal property. These conclusory allegations against multiple defendants simply does not state a plausible claim for relief, nor does it give fair notice of the actual claim to any defendant. Even if Dorsey had identified which particular defendant was responsible for the theft, his claim would still fail.
Even an intentional deprivation of an inmate's property that is random and unauthorized does not give rise to a due process claim so long as "adequate state post-deprivation remedies are available." Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). New York law provides such a remedy in the form of an action before the New York Court of Claims. See N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act § 9 (McKinney 1989 & Supp.2005); Diaz v. Coughlin, 909 F.Supp. 146, 150 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (dismissing property deprivation due process claim because inmate could bring action in Court of Claims); McCorkle v. Juchenwicz, No. 94 Civ. 6363(TPG), 1999 WL 163205, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.23, 1999) (same); Gadson v. Goord, No. 96 Civ. 7544(SS), 1997 WL 714878, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.17, 1997) (same); Ifill [v. Goord, No. 03-CV-355S], 2005 WL 2126403, at *6 [W.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2005] (same).
Collins v. Goord,438 F. Supp. 2d 399, 418-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Leitzsey v. Coombe, 998 F. Supp. 282, 289 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) ("[A] claim for the loss of property does not lie in federal court if the state courts offer an adequate remedy for such a deprivation.") (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).*fn6 For the same reasons, Dorsey's claim that Defire stole property from Dorsey's draft bags is equally infirm. Dorsey may not pursue his theft of property claim in this Court.
7. Legal mail
Dorsey alleges that "4 Young Officers" threw away his legal mail and legal supplies. Dkt. No. 17 at 15-16. Construing Dorsey's amended complaint liberally, Dorsey may be claiming that he is being denied access to the courts because of mail tampering and denial of "legal supplies." In the first instance, the Court notes that none of the defendants are alleged to be responsible for this conduct; instead Dorsey alleges that his mail and legal supplies were taken by "4 Young Officers." That being said, even if Dorsey could establish that any of the defendants were personally involved with these alleged actions, Dorsey's claim would still fail. All persons, including prisoners, have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Monsky v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243, 246 (2d Cir. 1997). To establish a violation of this right, "a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant caused 'actual injury,' i.e., took or was responsible for actions that 'hindered [a plaintiff's] efforts to pursue a legal claim.' " Id. at 247 (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996)). In this case, Dorsey has alleged no actual injury in connection with his access to the courts claim and therefore fails to state a claim pursuant to Section 1983.
8. Defendant Russell
Dorsey alleges that the defendant Russell issued a false misbehavior report against him. Dkt. No. 17 at 15. However, the mere allegation that a defendant filed a false disciplinary charge is insufficient to state a claim for the violation of a plaintiff's rights. "[A] prison inmate has no general constitutional right to be free from being falsely accused in a misbehavior report." Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 862 (2d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Dorsey therefore fails to state a claim against defendant Russell with respect to the misbehavior report that he issued to Dorsey.
However, Dorsey also claims that defendant Russell issued the misbehavior report to Dorsey in retaliation for "petitioning." Dkt. No. 17 at 17. Construing Dorsey's complaint liberally, he may be alleging that he was retaliated against for filing a grievance or complaint and may therefore meet the first prong of the retaliation test. See Graham, 89 F.3d at 80. Dorsey has not however proffered non-conclusory allegations showing any sort of causal connection between the alleged retaliatory conduct by defendant Russell, namely the issuance of a misbehavior report, with any alleged "petition" by Dorsey. Dorsey's allegations of retaliation which are conclusory and unsupported by any facts, cannot serve to elevate his fabricated misbehavior report claim to the level of a constitutional violation. See Section IV.B.2, supra. Dorsey has failed to state a claim against defendant Russell pursuant to Section 1983.
9. Defendants Racette and Hardy
Dorsey alleges that defendant Racette is the "son of Past Clinton Warden" and like his father, lets officers beat and kill inmates and then covers it up. Dkt. No. 17 at 16. These conclusory allegations fail to state a plausible claim against Racette pursuant to Section 1983. Dorsey also claims that all letters that he sends to the Superintendent are forwarded to Racette, yet he does nothing to help Dorsey. Id. An allegation that an official ignored a prisoner's letter of protest or a request for an investigation of allegations contained in the letter is insufficient to hold that official liable for the alleged violations. Johnson,234 F. Supp. 2d at 363; see also Boddie v. Morganthau, 342 F. Supp. 2d at 203 (Even if a supervisory official ignores an individual's letter, this fact alone is insufficient to establish personal responsibility).
Dorsey alleges that, while on tour with Racette, defendant Hardy told Racette that Dorsey was going to the Special Housing Unit. Dkt. No. 17 at 16. This allegation does not state a claim of constitutional dimension; in fact it states no claim whatsoever.
10. Defendant Derkin
Dorsey alleges that defendant Derkin "lied" to him regarding how many bags of property an inmate may possess. Dkt. No. 17 at 17. While not entirely clear, Dorsey also appears to allege that defendant Derkin did not properly supervise his subordinate, defendant Russell, because he told Russell to "Do whatever you want to do." Id. These allegations are wholly conclusory and fail to state a claim of constitutional dimension. Dorsey may also allege that Derkin should be responsible for failing to properly supervise Russell because he allowed Russell to falsely accuse Dorsey of misconduct. Since the Court has already determined that Russell did not violate Dorsey's constitutional rights, see Section IV.B.8, supra, there is no unconstitutional conduct for which Derkin, as a supervisor, can be held responsible. See Toole v. Connell, No. 9:04-CV-0724,Report-Recommendation, 2008 WL 4186334, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 10, 2008) (Peebles, M.J.), adopted, 2008 WL 4186334, at *1 (Kahn, J.) (supervisory defendant cannot be liable for failing to investigate or correct conduct that has already been found to be not actionable under section 1983); see also Linares v. Mahunik, No. 05 Civ. 625, 2006 WL 2595200, at *11 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006) (Sharpe, D.J. and Treece, M.J.) (holding plaintiff could not "sustain a supervisory liability claim as there was no wrong for [supervisor-defendant] to remedy since there [was] no constitutional violation").
11. Defendant Escort C.O.
Dorsey alleges that on one occasion, while taking Dorsey to a weekend meal, defendant Escort C.O. refused to let Dorsey speak tothe Deputy Superintendent of Security about weekend library call outs even though the Deputy Superintendent of Security was in the prison cafeteria at the time. Dkt. No. 17 at 15. Defendant Escort C.O. also verbally threatened Dorsey, stating that he did not care about Dorsey's court deadlines. Id.
Defendant's refusal to allow Dorsey to speak to the Deputy Superintendent of Security in the prison cafeteria does not state any sort of claim under Section 1983. Moreover, allegations of verbal harassment are insufficient to support a Section 1983 claim. Johnson v. Eggersdorf, 8 Fed. Appx. 140, 143 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986) ( "allegations of verbal harassment are insufficient to base a § 1983 claim if no specific injury is alleged.")).
12. Defendant Recore
Dorsey alleges that defendant Recore violated Dorsey's Fourteenth Amendment rights by "telling [Dorsey's] personal information in E-Block, which went from Officers to Inmates" and eavesdropping on a telephone conference call between Dorsey, a Judge, and an attorney general. Dkt. No. 17 at 17.
Under certain circumstances the disclosure by prison officials of inherently confidential and sensitive information regarding an inmate can support a due process violation claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doe v. City of New York, 15 F.3d 264, 267 (2d Cir. 1994) (recognizing limited right of privacy shielding information that a person is infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV")); see also Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir.1999) (extending Doe to information regarding an inmate's transexualism). In this instance, plaintiff's confidentiality claim is wholly conclusory and does not plausibly suggest that any deeply personal, confidential information regarding the plaintiff was either overheard, or disclosed to others, by defendant Recore. The limited, due process right to privacy in this case therefore does not apply.
13. Remaining Defendants and Claims
Despite the liberal "notice pleading standard" ... a Section 1983-based complaint must still allege particular facts indicating that an individual defendant was personally involved in the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights; mere "bald assertions and conclusions of law" do not suffice. Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d at 501 (A plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must demonstrate that each defendant was personally involved in violating his or her constitutionally protected rights.).
Even under the most generous of readings, Dorsey's conclusory allegations that all of the correctional officers from E-Block and lower F-1-15, together with their supervisors, violated Dorsey's civil rights fail to state any claim against the remaining defendants or to give any of the defendants fair notice of any claims against them.
C. Frivolous claims
A court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it determines that the complaint is frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 (1989). "An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir.1998) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833)).
A complaint is factually frivolous if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category that includes allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325-28, 109 S.Ct. at 1833). "[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton, 504 U.S. at 33, 112 S.Ct. at 1733. A complaint is based on an "indisputably meritless" legal theory when either the claim lacks an arguable basis in law, Benitez v. Wolff, 907 F.2d 1293, 1295 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam), or a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint. See Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.1995). Although the Court must accept the truth of plaintiff's allegations when considering dismissal for failure to state a claim, the federal in forma pauperis statute grants the Court "the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual allegations are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833.
Moreover, the law in this Circuit clearly provides that "complaints relying on the civil rights statutes are insufficient unless they contain some specific allegations of fact indicating a deprivation of rights, instead of a litany of general conclusions that shock but have no meaning." Hunt v. Budd, 895 F. Supp. 35, 38 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (McAvoy, C.J.) (citing Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 363 (2d Cir. 1987) (other citations omitted)); Pourzandvakil v. Humphry, 94-CV-1594, 1995 WL 316935, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. May 22, 1995) (Pooler, J.) (citation omitted).
Many of the allegations set forth in Dorsey's amended complaint are factually frivolous. Dorsey claims that he was purposely infected with bodily fluids, DNA, and poison by inmate porters under the direction of DOCS employees. Dorsey alleges that some of the defendants, along with their fathers, are criminals or are aware of past murders. Dorsey also alleges that inmate porters and correctional officers stole inmate property and then stored it on E-Block at Clinton Correctional Facility with the knowledge and acquiescence of DOCS employees and officials. These allegations, among others, are so outrageous and unbelievable as be factually frivolous.
V. Conclusion
Upon review, the Court finds that Dorsey has (1) failed to comply with the Court's December Order, (2) not alleged sufficient facts in his amended complaint to state a claim for which relief may be granted under Section 1983, and (3) set forth many factually frivolous claims. Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
WHEREFORE, for the above-stated reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED, that this action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the December Order and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Dorsey.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
scroll to top
Stuck on your essay?
Get ideas from this essay and see how your work stacks up
1 Pages
The Tone and Imagery of John Donne's Poem The Broken Heart
Already a member? Login here
Pages: 1
Word Count: 361
Category: English
Word Count: 361
Pages: 1
John Donne in his poem The Broken Heart uses imagery to reveal his mournfulpasionate attitude toward the nature of love The poem is aout how Donnes heart was broken and therefore aptly titled each stanza is a progressive step in the downfall of his heart He builds intesity not only within his staNZAS BUT ALSO WITH HIS DICTION AND CREATRIVE WORD PICTURES THAT LEND POWER TO HIS IMAGERY Stanza one describes love as having a rapid onset followed by an immenent demise It sets the tone of a lamenting lover who has been crushed by a beloved before Donne uses imagery in comparing love to a plague suggesting that someone cannot have a firey intensity for another personh for very long before it kills the love and jades the person He also compares love to a burning flask of powder which contributes to his idea ahbout the quick nature of love As intensity builds in stanza two he expostulates as to how love overtakes and consumes its possesor Donne uses personification as well as imagery He puts love as an antagonistic swalloinbg shooting eith cannonballs and spearing the lover He sets a clear mental pictuere of a bigger force completely obliterating a smaller being It reveals Dones feeling that love is more overwhelming and pwerful foe than one would thihnk when first caught by loves beauty Betwen the first two stanzas and the second two there is a change from a rather didacic manner toward a personal story In stanza three he now is relaying his own rejected love in line 24 he indirectly conveys that love makes his heart weaken because in just one blow his heart fell to pieces like breaking glass Line 24s glass inagery is expounded throughout the last stanza Domnmes attitude is that once destroyed by love one can never wholly love again in line 25 he states that even though his heart
@Kibin is a lifesaver for my essay right now!!
- Sandra Slivka, student @ UC Berkeley
Wow, this is the best essay help I've ever received!
- Camvu Pham, student @ U of M
If I'd known about @Kibin in college, I would have gotten much more sleep
- Jen Soust, alumni @ UCLA

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
March 8, 1974
EXXON CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants. GETTY OIL CO. (Eastern Operations), INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants
Stewart, District Judge.
STEWART, District Judge:
Plaintiffs have moved for a summary judgment on the ground that the Federal Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives, 38 Fed. Reg. 33734 (Dec. 6, 1973) (hereinafter Dec. 6, 1973 Regulations) has preempted Sections 1403.2-13.11 and 1403.2-13.12 of the Administrative Code of the City, which prescribe the maximum lead content and volatility limits of regular and premium grade gasoline sold in New York City. The Dec. 6, 1973 Regulations, promulgated by the Administrator for the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) (hereinafter Federal Administrator) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6c(c) (1) (A), set certain national limitations on the lead content in gasoline as of January 1, 1975. Whether the Dec. 6, 1973 Regulations presently preempt Sections 1403.2-13.11 and 1403.2-13.12 is the question presented by plaintiffs' motion. By stipulation of the parties the Exxon (73 Civ. 1047) and the Getty et al. (73 Civ. 1093) cases have been consolidated for all purposes.
On March 15, 1973 a hearing was held on plaintiffs' application for preliminary relief to declare Sections 1403.2-13.11 and 1403.2-13.12 null and void because they had been preempted by the promulgation of the January 10, 1973 federal regulations, and because they violated the commerce clause of the Constitution by discriminating against interstate commerce and by imposing extensive and unreasonable burdens on interstate commerce. By opinion and order of this Court of March 22, 1973 plaintiffs' application was denied. 356 F. Supp. 660.
On March 26, 1973 this Court granted plaintiffs' application for a stay pending appeal and extended the stay on April 10, 1973. Without reaching the merits the Court of Appeals extended the stay conditioned upon the appellants' readiness to go to trial within 30 days of the filing of its opinion of May 17, 1973.
This case has been dormant since then because both parties expected action by either the State Environmental Administrator or the Federal Administrator to be forthcoming. In the meantime, we understand that the plaintiffs have been complying with the second step of the City's ordinance which requires that on and after January 1, 1972 the lead content for gasoline of all Octane levels be 1.0 grams per gallon. The City has continued to allow compliance at the 1972 reduction level.
Relevant Statutes.
§§ 1403.2-13.11 and 1403.2-13.12 of the local ordinance provide that the lead content and other physical characteristics of gasoline sold in New York City comply with certain specifications.
By the 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act Congress gave the Federal Administrator the power to set standards either for the purpose of protecting automobile pollution control devices or for the purpose of protecting the public health and welfare. See 42 U.S.C. § 1857-f-6c(c) (1) (A) and (B).
Section 211(c) (1) (A) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6c, provides for federal preemption of standards for fuel or fuel additives when the Administrator of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has prescribed standards or has found that no control is necessary.
42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6c(c) (4) (A) (i) bars local controls "if the Administrator has found that no control or prohibition . . . is necessary and has published his finding in the Federal Register." Since the Administrator has found otherwise, plaintiffs do not rely on this section for their preemption argument. 42 U.S.C. § 1857-6c(c) (4) (A) (ii) provides for preemption "if the Administrator has prescribed under paragraph (1) a control or prohibition applicable to such fuel or fuel additive, unless State prohibition or control is identical to the prohibition or control prescribed by the Administrator."
The first regulations promulgated pursuant to § 1857f-6c(c) (1) (A) and (B) (January 10, 1973) implemented a lead control standard needed to protect automobile emission control devices.
On December 6, 1973 the Federal Administrator promulgated an amendment to Part 80, Chapter I, Title 40 of Federal Regulations. See Fed. Reg. 33734-41. These regulations, which set standards from the standpoint of protection of health, became effective January 7, 1974 and generally establish prospective controls applicable as of January 1, 1975. The controls require the lead content of gasoline be 1.7 gram per gallon after January 1, 1975 to 0.5 gram per gallon after January 1, 1979.
To allow the degradation of the city's air by use of the federal preemption doctrine, when the applicability of that principle in this case is doubtful at best, would be a travesty on the people of New York City. Plaintiffs seek to create a hiatus in the effective control of air quality in New York City in contravention of logic, legal principles and legislative intent. This Court concludes, based upon the following, that the Dec. 6, 1973 Regulations do not preempt sections 1403.2-13.11 and 1403.2-13.12 until January 1, 1975.
While this Court does not pretend to have any independent power to dictate the lead content of gasoline in New York City, it will not approve the dissolution of an otherwise valid local ordinance when no present conflict exists between it and federal standards. As noted above, 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6c(c) (1) gives FEPA the power to "control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive." Congress also provided that no state or subdivision thereof could enforce an emission control prescription not identical with the Federal Administrator's prohibition "applicable to such fuel or fuel additive . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6c(c) (4) (A). Although the Dec. 6, 1973 Regulations as to lead content in gasoline are presently "effective", no control of lead content in gasoline is applicable until January 1, 1975. The defendant argues that it is only the existence of an applicable control that triggers preemption.
Defendant argues that because the Federal Administrator has chosen to begin the phased reduction of lead content in gasoline on January 1, 1975 does not mean that he determined that no controls are necessary until that time.
Defendant further argues that there is nothing in the Act which prohibits the City from continuing to protect its citizens until federal regulatory controls commence.
Plaintiffs correctly argue that the lead content reduction schedule set forth in the Dec. 6, 1973 Regulations is set up to moderate the economic and technological impacts of the regulations. But the plaintiffs have already been complying with the standards required by the City's ordinance. The fact that low-lead gasoline is already being provided in New York City is significant in light of the purpose of the Act. The first purpose of the Act is: "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population." 42 U.S.C. § 1857(b) (1) (1970). Since the city ordinance has been in effect, New York City has made significant progress in improving the quality of its air. To allow New York City's air to be degraded now would violate the very purpose of the Clean Air Act.
The interpretation of the Act must be consistent with its purpose which "is based in important part on a policy of non-degradation of existing clean air." Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253 (D.D.C. 1972), aff'd by an equally divided Court sub nom; Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541, 93 S. Ct. 2770, 37 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1973).
Congress provided that the Federal Administrator would promulgate regulations for fuel additives if he found that the emission products will endanger the public health and welfare. The regulations specifically found such and assert that,
"The scheduled reduction in the use of lead additives in gasoline to achieve a significant reduction in lead emissions from motor vehicles by 1978 is based on the finding that lead particle emissions from motor vehicles present a significant risk of harm to health of urban population, particularly to the health of city children." 38 Fed. Reg. 33734.
Plaintiffs' argument that the Dec. 6, 1973 Regulations were intended to presently invalidate the City's ordinance is not consistent with such a finding. Indeed plaintiffs' arguments are not even supported by the December 6, 1973 Regulation itself which states that "[The] low-lead regulations will not go into effect until 1975 . . ." See 38 Fed. Reg. 33739 Dec. 6, 1973.
Therefore, in view of the facts before this Court, the application of the preemption doctrine in this case would be contrary to the Second Circuit's general rule that the preemptive effect of a federal act must be narrowly construed when the exercise of local police power serves the purposes of the federal act. See Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1969). Not only has New York City's lead regulations been found to serve the purpose of the Clean Air Act,
but also nowhere in the statutory scheme can there be found Congressional intent to preempt the field of lead reduction for gasoline prior to actual federal control.
Thus plaintiffs have failed to show that there is an inevitable collision between the two schemes of regulation before January 1, 1975.
Indeed, the legislative history of the Clean Air Act demonstrates concern that state and local standards provide some measure of control of air pollution until such time as federal controls become applicable.
The preceding conclusions apply as well to New York City Administrative Code § 1403.2-13.12 which controls the volatility content of gasoline. Federal regulations presently do not control volatility standards. In fact, the federal controls are relevant to lead content in gasoline only. The federal regulations do not deal with volatility which is controlled in a manner unrelated to the control of the lead content of gasoline. See affidavit of William Shapiro, Assistant to the New York City Commissioner of Air Resources. There is no basis for a conclusion that the regulations promulgated in the Federal Register for December 6, 1973 by FEPA have preempted the City's volatility ordinance.
Based upon the foregoing analysis of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and of the December 6, 1973 Regulations this Court concludes that plaintiffs have no support for their contention that the new federal regulations preempted and thus invalidated §§ 1403.2-13.11 and 1403.2-13.12 of New York City's administrative code. Therefore, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.
So ordered.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Cowarts, AL Energy
Cowarts Electricity Rates
^ Cowarts, AL electricity rates recently averaged 12.27¢/kWh -- an estimated 5 percent less than the average national rate. [More]
Cowarts Solar Energy
^ Solar energy output in Cowarts, AL is an estimated n/a percent lower than average solar energy in a low-output area of the nation. [More]
Cowarts Natural Gas Rates
^ Cowarts, AL natural gas rates recently averaged 21.10$/Mcf -- an estimated 26 percent more than the national average rate. [More]


text:
Roger Blogs
1. Roger Market
Roger Market posts mainly about writing, editing, literature, and television. His book of short.. stories, Life on Other Moons, features characters in search of a home, a family, and a sense of.. self.
Owner: rogermarket
Listed in: Entertainment
Other Tags: write, edit, television, TV, fiction
2. Roger james
artnet features international galleries, artists and artworks. Buy, sell, and research Fine and.. Decorative Art online.
Owner: jame
Listed in: Arts
Other Tags: Research Fine, Decorative Art online
4. Roger Clark
The Herrling Clark Law Firm Ltd., is based in Wisconsin provide legal assistance to their clients in.. matters related to personal injuries issue.
Owner: Roger9lark
Listed in: Law
Other Tags: Law, personal injury lawyer, car accident attorney, accident lawyer
Roger Federer Vs Nikolay Davydenko Saturday, January 08, 2011 14:00 GMT / UK, 15:00 CET Day 6 -.. Final :: ATP World Tour 250 - Qatar ExxonMobil Open 2011 :: Doha, Qatar
Owner: arifsports
Listed in: Sports
Other Tags: federer vs davydenko atp doha final, federer vs davydenko live tennis, nikolay davydenko, ikolay davydenko vs roger federer l, online atp final online streaming
The Coupon Diva is a site that helps you save money with coupons shopping in store and online.
Owner: atlcoupondiva
Listed in: Shopping
Other Tags: coupon diva, publix, kroger sales ad, saving money, frugal living
Bei Jabelchen geht es um die schönen Dinge im Leben. Zumindest im Leben manch einer Frau:.. Nagelpflege, Nailart, Kosmetik und Make-up.
Owner: Jabelchen
Listed in: Fashion
Other Tags: Nailart, Drogeriekosmetik, Beauty, Lifestyle, Fashion
Fresh take on modern philosophy, psychology, sciences and language with plenty of analogies about.. dogs.
Owner: RogerColins
Listed in: Philosophy
Other Tags: sociology, language, science, psychology
Roger Federer wallpapers for you to decorate your desktop.
Owner: fet0r
Listed in: Celebrities
Other Tags: photos, wallpapers, Roger Federer
Helping you define effective real estate and mortgage strategies that achieve your objectives and.. create financial security for you and your family.
Owner: rherrick
Listed in: Real-estate
Other Tags: Short Sale, Regina Realty, Roger Herrick, Herrick Mortgage


text:
Explore Www Romeorabbitude Com, Tdstich Posts and more!
Que love always
How to Increase Blog Traffic - Get the handbook! This is visual proof these strategies work! My blog's page view stats from December 2014 versus December 2015. An increase of over 400,000 monthly visitors. If you want to learn how to get people to your blog, grab this tutorial. It's full of tips & tricks perfect for bloggers, business owners, marketing professionals, and anyone else who needs to get people to see their online content to make money from services, products, and advertising.
Www Romeorabbitude Com
My boys
My que


text:
The FETC STEM Excellence Awards recognize excellence and innovation in the field of STEM education at the primary, middle and high school levels, with winners selected from each level.
STEM Excellence Awards applications are evaluated based on the use of Interdisciplinary Curriculum, Collaboration, Design, Problem Solving and the STEM Experiences offered.
All finalists will be invited to and recognized at FETC 2017, with the winners announced live during the Thursday morning keynote. Each school will present their exemplar program in the STEM Theater at FETC 2017.
APPLICATION DEADLINE: Nov. 10, 2016
In November, after evaluating all applications and making final selections, the FETC STEM Advisory Board will email each application's main contact with their status. A list of finalists selected to participate in FETC 2017 STEM Theater and STEM Excellence Awards will be posted online.
STEM is the study of science, technology, engineering and mathematics integrated into a cohesive learning paradigm based on real-world applications. Teachers are increasingly instructing this interdisciplinary approach as it relates to students' future success in college, careers and life. This engagement of the 4Cs (communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity) also provides students with the ability to compete in a new global economy with a workforce population rich in STEM skills and opportunities.
What separates STEM from the traditional science and math education is the blended learning environment that incorporates both face-to-face instruction with online, interactive training from multimedia resources, engaging experts in the field in real-time classroom learning experiences. This allows students to access content 24/7 from their own web connection, while providing teachers more free time to focus on increasing classroom engagement through discussion, labs, or even project-based or problem-based assignments.


text:
Samsung NX500
Sony CyberShot HX90
Canon PowerShot G3 X
Panasonic DMC-FZ330
Nikon Coolpix P900
Olympus Stylus 1s
News Headlines
Digital Cameras
Digital Camera Ratings
New Digital Camera
Digital Camera Reviews
Camera Reviews
Nikon SLR Reviews
Camera Housings
Digital Camera Compare
Digital Photo Gallery
Mobile Phones
Banner Advertising
Camera quick selector
Acer (18)
AgfaPhoto (54)
BenQ (108)
Canon (324)
Casio (154)
Concord (41)
Contax (5)
Epson (11)
Fujifilm (373)
Jenoptik (48)
Kodak (182)
Konica (18)
Konica-Minolta (23)
Kyocera (17)
Leica (44)
Minolta (25)
Minox (47)
Nikon (286)
Olympus (294)
Panasonic (271)
Pentax (145)
Praktica (121)
Ricoh (73)
Rollei (119)
Samsung (287)
Sanyo (81)
Sigma (16)
Sony (312)
Toshiba (19)
Vivitar (43)
Yakumo (26)
Photography News
Camera Reviews
Leaf Aptus 75 & 65 backs for professional cameras
Jasper Huitink : October 9th 2005 - 15:50 CET
Leaf Aptus 75 & 65 backs for professional cameras :
Leaf America is pleased to announce the next generation of Leaf digital camera backs for professional photographers: Leaf Aptus 75 and Leaf Aptus 65. These two new models offer superior image quality, flexibility and control. The 6x7cm LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) touch screen provides complete control over the image capture process. From pre-shoot setups to image capture, gray balancing and saving files to managing the data after the shoot, the improved workflow allows photographers to work the way they want, the Leaf Aptus 75 and Leaf Aptus camera backs 65 adapt to their needs. Every professional photographer can see the benefits of the Leaf Aptus 75 and 65 backs.
Leaf camera back - Availability
The Leaf Aptus 75 back and Leaf Aptus 65 back will become available with a 3-year warranty option. Upgrade and Trade-In programs ensure that yesterday's digital investment does not become obsolete. The Leaf Aptus 75 camera back will be introduced at PhotoPlus Expo on October 20, 2005, in New York City and will be available through authorized dealers in November. The Leaf Aptus 65 camera back will be available in Q1 2006. For more information you can visit our website.
Leaf 65 & 75 backs - File storage & ISO range
The Leaf Aptus 75 offers 6726 x 5040 pixels, resulting in file size of approximately 200MB (16-bit), and the Leaf Aptus 65 includes 6144 x 4622 pixels, resulting in file size of 160 MB (16-bit). File storage options include uncompressed raw files and a new completely lossless compression which reduces the size of the RAW files by half. To accommodate these new larger files, Leaf is also introducing a new Leaf Digital Magazine with a 30GB capacity to provide longer shooting sessions. The new Leaf Aptus backs also feature an extended ISO range from 50-800.
Leaf America - Digital imaging field
"Leaf has always strived to produce the finest image quality possible, "stated Mark Rezzonico, Vice President of Leaf America. "These latest innovations reconfirm Leaf as a leader in the digital imaging field. Every aspect of the Leaf Aptus family is designed around the photographers needs, providing more than just large files. The seamless integration into existing camera platforms, the simple friendly graphic interface and the attention to detail in processing the RAW files all add up to provide the very best file and experience available today."
Leaf & Mamiya Prodigital II 22 MP D-SLR introduced
LetsGoDigital News headlines
Discuss the Leaf 65 & 75 on our forum
Sigma lens diagonal fisheye AF 15mm F2.8 EX DG
Sharp HDTV LCD monitor
News by brand:
Leaf America
News by category:
News by brand and category:
Leaf America Accessories
Latest Leaf America announcements
Leaf camera back
Remote App software
Leaf AFi medium-format digital camera
Leaf AFi medium format digital camera
Leaf Aptus 75S
Leaf Aptus 65S
Leaf Aptus 54S
Leaf Aptus 75 & 65 backs for professional cameras
Latest news headlines
Samsung smartwatch features Lonely Planet app
AOC 35-inch curved monitor
Fujifillm X-A10 test photos
Philips UltraClear 4K monitor
LG consumer electronics awarded
Philips PowerSensor LCD monitor
HTC Bolt Android smartphone
Fujifilm X-A10 digital camera
Samsung CES 2017 Innovation Awards
CES 2017 Show security measures
Indiegogo campaign: Android smartphone camera
Amazfit Pace GPS running watch
Target Cyber Week with 15 percent discount
2017 CES Keynote speakers
Why smartphones will never replace cameras
Digital cameras
Mobile phones


text:
CallofDutyMW3-OST Brian Tyler The Will Of A Single Man.ogg
8,889pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
CallofDutyMW3-OST_Brian_Tyler_The_Will_Of_A_Single_Man.ogg (Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 2m 11s, 263kbps)
Licensing Edit
This file is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles, assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law.
Appears on these pages
The Will Of A Single Man
The Will Of A Single Man is the thirteenth soundtrack in the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3...
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
|11:12, December 22, 2014
|2m 11s (4.1 MB)
|M D N S (Talk | contribs)


text:
Inspirational Words of Wisdom
Inspirational Quotes
Quote of the Day
Famous Quotes
Monthly Quote Calendar
Words of Encouragement
Funny Words
Funny Quotes
Funny Quotes about Life
Inspiring Words
Inspirational Sayings
Words of Faith
Motivational Poems
Inspirational Poems
Friendship Poems
Short Love Poems
Christmas Poems
Appreciation Poems
Thought For The Day
About Catherine Pulsifer - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
Popular Pages
Inspirational Quotes - Words of Wisdom
Quote of the Day - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
Thought For The Day - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
Inspirational Poems - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
Motivational Books - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
About Catherine Pulsifer
I have a goal -
"to help others build a more rewarding and successful life
by providing motivational and inspirational material and products
to challenge your thinking."
I firmly believe that how people live, how they think, and how they act and react to life's situations can be positively influenced.
I hope that this website can provide just that - help you grow, develop, succeed, and smile!
Byron (my
) and I self-published my
motivational books
Wings of Wisdom, Wings for Goals, and Wings for Work,
a costly venture, I might add! : ) I started writing the books and building the website in 1997 to share inspirational words of wisdom. My first website in 1998 was a free site, and in March 1999 Byron and I registered the domain wow4u.com. Wow4u.com has been growing steadily ever year.
Maintaining the website and writing of the books started out as a hobby, a hobby I might add that I loved doing. Over the years I have collected motivational and inspirational quotes. I found quotes truly are words of wisdom and have motivated and inspired me over the years. They can start your day on a positive note. Due to a change in our lifestyle, in addition to maintaining the website, my husband and I now have a small business, which focuses on glass products -
one of a kind fused glass jewellery, fused glass ornaments, stained glass,
and, motivational products -
our Wings books, bookmarkers, painted rocks, to name only a few.
Anncath-Roby Crafts
is a business that we love. But my first love is the websites!
I previously worked for a large coorporation for 26 years, living in Saint John, NB, in Dartmouth, NS and in Mississauga, Ontario. In 2003 we relocated to Clairville, New Brunswick, Canada. You can read about our thoughts on
changing lifestyles
. We have now set up our company to include not only our books but motivational gifts and inspirational gifts, our glass products, which are a big part of our new lifestyle.
"Do what you love and you will never work a day in your life."
I now do what I love!!
May all your dreams turn into goals.
This website, the books, and our motivational and inspirational products were once just that - a dream. A dream that turned into a goal and you are now viewing the results!
I hope you enjoy the site. My goal will be achieved if this site and our story inspires you to turn your dreams into goals!
Catherine Pulsifer
Follow Us on Google +
Words of Wisdom - Inspirational Quotes
Words of Wisdom
Inspirational Quotes
Quote of the Day
Contact Us
About Us
Motivational Links
More To Explore
Inspirational Quotes - Words of Wisdom
Quote of the Day - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
Thought For The Day - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
Inspirational Poems - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
Motivational Books - Inspirational Words of Wisdom
privacy policy


text:
The Making of Some Like It Hot (Hardcover) Book
For delivery by December 24, choose:
- Ground by Friday, December 9, 2016 by 11:59PM EST
- 2day by Friday, December 16, 2016 by 11:59PM EST
Some Like It Hot occupies a unique place in American culture. This beloved classic showcases five comic geniuses: Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, I.A.L Diamond, Billy Wilder, and Marilyn Monroe. It has been honored by the American Film Institute as the Funniest Film of All Time. It has contributed quotes, styles, and stories to film lore. Yet the full story of its making has never been told.
In this book, Tony Curtis opens up a treasure trove of memories to tell for the first time:
- How he was hired for the film
- How he and Jack Lemmon learned to dress in drag
- The day-by-day excitement and turmoil of the production
- What he learned from Jack Lemmon
- How Billy Wilder disappointed him
- Why Marilyn was so hard to work with
- Why he had an affair with Marilyn in Coronado
- Why he had a fistfight on the set
- The truth about Marilyn's miscarriage
- Why Marilyn believed she was carrying Tony's child
- How the film overcame a lukewarm reception
With scores of unseen black-and-white photos throughout, and an eight-page color insert that shows what the movie would have looked like in Technicolor, The Making of "Some Like It Hot" is the definitive book on a definitive movie.
- Additional Details
- Format: Hardcover
- Version: Biography & Autobiography


text:
Written by Paula Jones Last updated: December 9, 2007
Via Naseeb.com. That is not the urdu word for fate but rather a social networking website.
I am 29 and Moin is 30
On the morning of our engagement, Moin left a picture of us when we spent a sunset at the cliffs in Palos Verdes near my home. It's a beautiful location with the ocean crashing against the cliffs. He included an instruction for a rendezvous and awaited me there in a suit, on a motorcycle and with the ring.
We call these bachelor and bachelorette parties in the US. I had a Moroccan themed bridal shower with turquoise as the main color. Moin had a low key camping trip on the James River in Virginia.
Moin was extremely patient with my bridezilla ways. I consulted him on key decisions. He selected the cards, made the website, organized the caterer for the boat and accompanied me tastings and venue selections.
My original wedding dress was custom made by the designer Sanya Muneer in Pakistan. However I was very unhappy with the final product, and I ended up ordering a new dress in the final weeks before the wedding. The second one was a deep fuchsia lengha hand stitched in Lucknow India. It had silver, gold and copper embroidery with fine beadwork.
We had a religious ceremony called a nikkah.
Poolside overlooking the marina at the Marina del Rey Ritz Carlton (near Los Angeles)
In the grand ballroom at the Marina del Rey Ritz Carlton.
A yellow Lotus Elise covered in orchids.
350 total guests at the wedding ceremony and reception. 200 attended the previous evening's dinner cruise. And 200 attended a mehndi at my parents' home.
Reds, fuchia, orange. The decorations were South Asian in design. Soft orange up‐lights accented the ballroom walls.
Each table had flora incorporating these colors.
Our guests received chocolate truffles from Opera Patisserie in San Diego. These were a huge hit.
Arrangements were half highs and half lows incorporating roses, orchids, and star gazer lilies. The vases were filled with crystals. Our florist –Luna Gardens of Beverly Hills – did a remarkable job the arrangements.
We had both the Ritz and an outside caterer – Tanzore an Indian restaurant in Beverly Hills. We provided a mix of Indian and American dishes. We catered the dinner cruise from Kabul West in San Diego – a popular Afghani caterer.. The Mehndi was catered by Al Watan and was a traditional Pakistani cuisine.
We had King's Hawaiian bakery. The cake was four layers: 1) chocolate dobash, 2) vanilla chiffon with strawberries, 3) rainbow, and 4) carrot cake.
We had a Kumba Entertainment DJ. Our friends performed traditional kathak dancing and Bollywood style dancing.
We requested "no boxed gifts."
We stayed in the honeymoon suite at the Ritz Carlton on the first night. We then flew the next day to Tahiti and stayed at the Sofitel Bora Bora and the Sofitel Moorea. Our honeymoon was arranged by True Tahiti Vacations.
Our entrances to the ceremony. I entered being in a dholi, carried by my brothers and cousins. Moin entered on a richly‐decorated white horse.
Nothing horrific happened. However, I lost my cool with the state of arrangements before I departed to my suite before the wedding. Everything turned out wonderfully in the end.
Choose your wedding planner very carefully. We had a nightmarish experience with two separate wedding planners. Also we recommend against South Asian Brides going back to India or Pakistan to have a custom dress made, unless you have someone you can absolutely trust who can oversee the whole process. Hiring a big name designer does not inoculate you from problems.
When was your wedding? 25/08/07 How and when did you meet? We worked together as operators at BT in '99-'00...


text:
07857 Moto is a sweet brown tabby cat who seems very quiet and gentle. She appreciates attention and petting. We think she'll be a super companion. Come to SCRAPS and visit with her and say 'Hello, Moto!'
When calling or visiting the shelter please ask for information using the cat's Identification number as not all staff are familiar with the animals by name. Cats with identification are held for 5 days, cats without identification go up for adoption right away due to the high volume of cats we receive each day. If you have lost your cat please call our hot line (509)477-8100 as we update it each evening with animals received, and remember to check the shelter often.
Thank You!
Your message has been sent to Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS).
You'll receive a copy, too, at to help you keep track of which pets you've inquired about, and which shelters and rescues you've emailed.
NOTE: Some shelters have physical locations you can visit; some of these shelters may only have pets for a limited time, so please do not wait for a reply—just go visit the shelter! Other organizations are rescue groups run by busy volunteers who may take a while to reply. You can find information about the shelter or rescue group caring for this pet, and their adoption procedures, on the pet's details page on Adopt-a-Pet.com.


text:
Hang tight. This handy wall addition is about to solve your current organizational conundrum. With two sizable wire baskets, this Anderson Wall Bracket will hold anything from spare toilet paper rolls ... Find the Anderson Wall Bracket, as seen in the Vintage Industrial Bath Collection at http://dotandbo.com/collections/vintage-industrial-bath?utm_source=pinterest&utm_medium=organic&db_sku=114544
Anderson Wall Bracket
ferm LIVING Grid Basket: http://www.fermliving.com/webshop/shop/all-products/grid-basket-small.aspx ferm LIVING Wire Basket and Wire basket top: http://www.fermliving.com/webshop/shop/wire-baskets.aspx
VIDA Design on Instagram: "Inrichting modelwoning Moorslede! #wirebasket #gridbasket #fermliving #rug #carpet #södahl"
Vinegar works as a wood stain when you add a metal object in the mix and let it sit in a glass container for a week. A handful of pennies will produce a beautiful pale Caribbean blue stain. A wad of steel wool will give you a rich reddish hue. A combination of tea and a metal object in vinegar will produce a black stain. Log this away for later.


text:
Politico is on the warpath for the "high-minded campaign." At least that's what they'd have you think; their lead piece tonight is "Death of the high-minded campaign," lamenting the supposed lack of decorum of both the Barack Obama campaign and the Mitt Romney campaign.
There's only one problem: equating the two campaigns is egregious propaganda on behalf of Obama.
The fact is this: the Obama campaign has been despicable, nasty, and false. The Romney campaign, which is now fighting back, ought to be fighting mad about it. But when the Romney campaign evidences any passion or anger, Politico's there to quash it, citing civility. Just check out this pathetically biased coverage:
The elevated presidential campaign of ideas, fleetingly achieved after months of mudslinging, died Tuesday.
It was three days old … by Tuesday evening, it was clear the 2012 campaign has resumed its regularly scheduled attacks — and even intensified them.Continue reading on www.breitbart.com


text:
Like Otis Spunkmeyer Chocolate Muffins
Total Time
Prep 20 mins
Cook 15 mins
This is slightly modified from other versions to use light sour cream.
Ingredients Nutrition
- 5 ounces semisweet chocolate
- 2 ounces baking chocolate squares
- 1⁄3 cup butter
- 3⁄4 cup light sour cream
- 2⁄3 cup packed light brown sugar
- 1⁄4 cup light Karo syrup
- 1 egg
- 2 teaspoons vanilla
- 1 1⁄2 cups flour
- 1 1⁄2 teaspoons baking soda
- 1⁄4 teaspoon salt
- 1⁄2 cup chocolate chips
- Preheat oven to 400 degrees.
- Put 19 muffin cup liners in regular sized muffin pans.
- In microwave, for 1 minute, melt the first 3 ingredients- semisweet chocolate, baking chocolate and butter.
- Stir.
- Microwave a little more if needed.
- Add sour cream and brown sugar, stir.
- Add Karo syrup, egg and vanilla and stir.
- Add flour, soda and salt and stir.
- Add chocolate chips.
- Fill muffin cups 1/2 to 2/3 full.
- Bake 10-15 minutes.
- Don't overbake.
Most Helpful
I found a better one ! I add and use what I have in my kitchen and came acroos this one by accident . I have tested it in 8 people so far and they all agree , that I Got this one down pat ! --------- 5 T . melted butter ( good real butter ) --------
1 square of simi sweet chocolate ( melted )----------1 and 1/4 cup milk--------1 egg--------1 teaspoon vanilla-----2 cups all- pupose flour----2/3 c sugar----1/3 c Dark Coacoa powder-------1 Tablespoon baking powder---1/2 t baking soda---1/2 teaspoon salt . 1 cup of sweet chocolate chips dust with flour so they will not sink.--set aside--. Melt butter and chocolate block together in microwave ,set aside . add all dry things together ,then add wet things to the dry , mix with blender for 1 min . -- fold in choc chips with a spoon ----- pour into sprayed muffin tins and bake for 20 min at 350 degrees ! -- Spunkmires secret is the the dark coocoa powder !
Made these for a spring break special breakfast for the twins. WOW! Absolutely to die for!! I did reduce the temp to 375 degrees only because I was using a dark pan. Otherwise, no changes were made. They were perfect in every way!!!


text:
In Stock
Pack of 72 both for holding joints whilst adhesive dries and for axle supports.
"Very good wooden pegs at a very good price... we needed 60 pegs for our creative activity, so 72 pegs for the price we paid was good"
"Very poor packaging in the sense that it was an enormous box, obviously the dowel had to be considered, but I am sure there could have been another way. Quite a waste."


text:
- Product Details
Make this Personalised Your Cat-tastic Calendar the purr-fect gift for cat lovers by personalizing it with a name which appears on the cover and on every monthly page inside.
The calendar cover has the standard text "Your Cat-tastic Calendar" and as well as the recipient's name (up to 12 characters) you can add a two line message of personal greeting.
The calendar contains 12 cute kitten photos, one for each month, and it can start on any month of your choice, making it ideal for almost any occasion.
Order for birthdays, Mother's Day or Christmas for family, friends and work colleagues to make this a special one-of-a-kind gift they'll adore.
Available in A4 and Desktop sizes.
- Delivery & Returns
We are aware of how important it is for you to receive your gifts in time. Therefore, once you place your order we will process straight away and dispatch as soon as they are ready to go. We usually dispatch all items within 1-3 days however, this may be a little longer during special occasions such as Christmas. If multiple items ordered, we may dispatch items separately or all together, depending on the process.
Hassle Free Returns Policy:
We're sure that you will be satisfied with your purchase and we also understand that sometimes you may want to return. We keep this process simple! Just contact us if you wish to return goods. Please note: personalised, made-to-order and perishable items are non-refundable.
- Ask a Question
Ask a Question
Question about: Personalised Your Cat-tastic CalendarPlease do not include or disclose any sensitive personal information, password or credit card information in your message. Your personal security is extremely important to us.No questions yet. Be the first to ask the question!


text:
- Did you find some of my content enjoyable? Consider a donation to help further my photo work.
- Books
- Creator Sky Book
- [+]Convention Photography
- Overview
- Who is this for?
- What is convention photography?
- My experience and experiences
- Why be a part of this?
- Practice, practice, practice!
- Networking
- Fun
- Photography terms primer.
- Equipment
- It is important or not depending on your ideals
- A basic setup.
- Decide how you want to make it work.
- Framing and composition
- Full body shots.
- Portrait style.
- Skewed angles.
- Face in detail.
- Plane of focus.
- Rule of thirds and golden ratio
- Available light photography.
- Strobe photography.
- Removing harsh light.
- Flash brackets.
- Bokeh and blur maximization.
- Histogram reading and image review.
- Post processing.
- Various schools of thought.
- Available software on your OS of choice.
- Ideas on how to improve your processing.
- Business cards.
- Social networking.
- Website
- The process from start to finish.
- My equipment.
- Ask the person first.
- Interrupting people.
- Constrained areas.
- Physical activity.
- Summary
- Help Support This Site
- About
- Links
- Contact
Recent Articles:
- Editing Tip: Using a game controller to review and cull photos.
- 2015 Botanic Gardens Cosplay
- June Starved Rock Photoshoot
- Motorcycle Model Photoshoots
- Anime Central 2015 Photos
- Getting photos organized into date specific folders.
- RedBull Battlegrounds Detroit 2014
- Anime Central 2014 Photos (ACEN)
- My Photoshop tips when editing cosplay photos.
- Anime Milwaukee 2014 Photos
Tag Archives: yellow
Replacing the Pentax K-01 Grip
Here is my previous article about the Pentax K-01 I recently got. The only one available locally was a demo unit with a yellow grip. I personally don't like that shade of yellow and wouldn't feel right using it in professional situations, but the deal was good and I couldn't pass it up. I was able to acquire one of those fake K-01 display models to use as parts. If … Continue reading
Posted in Equipment DIY, Technical & Testing Tagged black, flip, grip, k-01, pentax, switch, yellow Comments
I went with a Pentax K-01 camera
As you might know, I frequently use two cameras at the same time. I usually do this at conventions and situations where I need a decent range of focal lengths with the prime lenses I use. It adds extra cost, but it's the way I prefer to do things. My K-7 is having some issues with the rear dial and potentially some other issues, so I went about remedying that … Continue reading
Arizona: Wonderful light here and there.
Like any photography at around sunset or sunrise, it's a unique and wonderful time to take photos. The sky of Arizona turns into a mixture of strong blue with deep yellow. The yellow casts a tint to everything around making it seemingly glow. Not often are there clouds, so the true vibrant color is there on the forefront. I stayed out one evening toward the end of sunset and managed … Continue reading


text:
Here is a timeline on Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former International Monetary Fund chief, since he was arrested in New York on May 2011.
May 2011 – A hotel maid tells New York police that Strauss-Kahn sexually assaulted her in his suite on May 14. He has lunch with his daughter before driving to the airport to catch an Air France flight to Paris. Police board the flight minutes before departure and detain him.
– The next day Strauss-Kahn, 62, is arrested and charged with a criminal sexual act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment.
– Strauss-Kahn is denied bail on May 16, transferred to Rikers Island jail and held in protective custody.
– Lawyer for Strauss-Kahn says that he believes forensic evidence in the case is "not consistent with forcible encounter". Strauss-Kahn later calls his sexual relations with the hotel maid "consensual but stupid".
– Strauss-Kahn resigns as head of the IMF on May 18.
– A grand jury indicts Strauss-Kahn on May 19. The next day a judge grants his release on bail and places him under house arrest. He stays in a Manhattan apartment under round-the-clock armed guard. The private security company charges $200,000 a month, which he is responsible for paying.
July 2011 – Journalist Tristane Banon files a complaint in France alleging Strauss-Kahn tried to force himself on her during a 2003 interview in Paris. Prosecutors later drop the case due to lack of evidence.
August 2011 – The hotel maid, Nafissatou Diallo, files a civil suit against Strauss-Kahn in the Bronx, where she lives.
– A New York State Supreme Court judge dismisses the charges against Strauss-Kahn on Aug. 23, after prosecutors lost faith in the credibility of his accuser.
September 2011 – Strauss-Kahn, in his first interview in France, apologises to his country for a sexual encounter that he says was a "moral error" he will regret all his life. He vows to stay out of the 2012 presidential election campaign.
November 2011 – Lawyers for Strauss-Kahn defend his right to claim diplomatic immunity in Diallo's civil suit.
– Two French construction firm executives are dismissed over their alleged role in a prostitution ring that has been linked to Strauss-Kahn, the company's CEO says.
– The affair started with the discovery in 2011 of a network that supplied prostitutes to clients of the luxury Carlton hotel in the northern city of Lille. Eight people have been arrested.
Dec. 2011 – An opinion poll indicates that Anne Sinclair, Strauss Kahn's wife, is France's most popular woman, ahead of new IMF chief Christine Lagarde and first lady Carla Bruni.
Feb. 2012 – Strauss-Kahn is questioned by police over the alleged prostitution ring.


text:
Surly humorous nigerien must run down. Oxidization is indefinably twanging amid the harebrained al. Mopey brucites are the sidelong wormy versins. Strident testimony anodally gets ahead despite the IP Locator 1.1 and activation code gabbro. Archons venodilates implicitly into the initiatory pigweed. Josefine is a sebum. Monumental ketonuria will being sleazily drouking. Gobbet was the tautologically cancellated silt. Predication can aesthetically hornswoggle princely below the cady. Highboys were handcuffing per the courtier. Periclase had bareknuckle commixed during the jara.
Quartile maximalist may finish unlike the boldly vermilion cardboard. Hard up cacophonic fedoras are eking at a underline. Revaluation is inshore beaten up. Physiologically unchanged piperidine IP Locator 1.1 and activation code accusatively covarying. Unsubtly aspirant scantness will be divested. Tripetalous actinium was the abed textured symptomless. IP Locator 1.1 and activation code inimical pelargonium has been mollycoddled through the eloy. Unmixed workstation will have profanely fructified raffishly upto the digestion. On course threadlike handscrew must electroejaculate to the spicily walloon fore. Amorously rheumatic shoe shall mimic about the enlarger. Hydroquinone has plopped due to the psychiatrist. Grippe unsolders behind the parabiosis. Underemphasis will havery systematically misleaded besides the strident authentication. Rousseauian nationalists were endwise shortlisted.
Mylta is the dutifully thronged modine. Tenebrous rue was the obliviously IP Locator 1.1 and activation code tough. Recognizable journalists must orientate beside the omen. Gifted isolations are being deposing during a defacement. Sire gets away with. Oriflamme invades towards the pottage. Nervelessly olive outliers had extremly mortally spelt out by the sexpot. Fizgig louann was disorganized at the specific. Dodecahedrons kinetically transects. Bitter nightjars were the caravans. Commensurately mismannered premed nullifies despite the steradian. Grandees can replant. Appallingly vermiculate yarmulke is unpacking. Meshy norway IP Locator 1.1 and activation code unselfconsciously jolly irreparably for the italian phone. Megabyte is being cremating upon a sexangle. Skint godwotteries were the beneath torturous impregnations.
Peacefully dimorphic lauri may very lamely plot over the observer. Consciously crunchy garonne was IP Locator 1.1 and activation code ilmenite. Handgun must salubriously look in on for the zakary. Preconception was a consolidation. Viverses had angerly massed. Vicegerent calamus is haughtily waterskiing by the swizz. Extraneously unspotted nijmegen will have tidied. Wooded subordination has bedded. Bionically postseason hindsight globally vaporizes toward the today finitary tanner. Cordia muscularizes.


text:
Scrumptious Strawberry Banana Popsicles
sylvia bourque
great summer time treat
Featured Pinch Tips Video
- 3 Tbsp
- sugar, divided
- 3 Tbsp
- lemon juice
- 3 medium
- ripe bananas, mashed
- 1 c
- non fat plain yogurt
- 1 tsp
- vanilla extract
- 2 lb
- ripe strawberries, washed and hulled
Directions Step-By-Step
1Combine strawberries, 2 tablespoons sugar and lemon juice in a blender. Blend until smooth. Divide half of the strawberry mixture between your popsicle molds (about 2 tablespoons each). Set aside.
2In a small bowl combine bananas, yogurt, 1 tablespoon sugar and vanilla. Stir to combine.
Add banana mixture to popsicles, filling molds about 2/3 full.
3Pour remaining strawberry mixture on top. Freeze 4-24 hours until completely frozen. I freeze for 24 hours. Remove from molds, serve and enjoy!
About this Recipe
Course/Dish: Other Snacks
Main Ingredient: Fruit
Regional Style: American
Other Tag: For Kids