Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves for summary judgment on his fourth
cause of action which alleges that he was wrongfully confined to medical
keeplock status from April 8, 2006 through April 14, 2006. In support of the
motion claimant submitted his own affidavit, copies of pages 7, 8, 9 and 17of
the claim (claimant's Exhibit A), a Medical Restriction notification dated April
4, 2006 (Exhibit B) and copies of a grievance he filed and responses thereto
(Exhibits C, D and E). The pleadings were not submitted in support of the
For the period April 4, 2006 through April 24, 2006 three medical restrictions
were authorized by the medical department at Wende Correctional Facility in
relation to treatment of an unspecified physical injury: 1) "No work/ No
School" 2) "Feed in Cell" 3)"Cane/Crutch Permit" (Exhibit B). Claimant alleges
that he was confined to his cell for seven days in violation of the authorized
medical restrictions. Although the investigating officer indicated in a
memorandum written in response to the claimant's grievance that "[t]he medical
form does not indicate 24-hour medical keeplock" (Exhibit C), the formal
response to the grievance indicates that "it was the intention of the medical
department that you remained [sic] in your cell during the medical
restriction" (Exhibit E).
As the party seeking summary judgment, claimant must make a prima facie showing
of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by offering sufficient evidence
to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Cox v Kingsboro
Medical Group, 88 NY2d 904 ; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med.
Center, 64 NY2d 851 ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557
). Failure to make a prima facie showing requires denial of a motion for
summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers
(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 ).
By moving for summary judgment without submitting all of the pleadings as
required by CPLR 3212 (b) the claimant "failed to satisfy [his] initial burden
on the motion, thereby obviating any issue as to the sufficiency of the papers
submitted in opposition thereto" (Welton v Drobnicki, 298 AD2d 757,757
, citing Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853;
see also Senor v State of New York, 23 AD3d 851 ).
Moreover, claimant failed to establish that medical keeplock was imposed in
contravention of prison protocols (see De Jesus v State of New
York, 15 Misc 3d 1105 [A] [Ct Cl 2007]) or to otherwise negate the existence
of issues of fact requiring a trial.
Accordingly, claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied.