infirmary, Dr. Tan's violation of that policy would not amount to a constitutional violation for the reasons set forth infra. In fact, whether a particular prison policy exists at all or was violated is not dispositive of plaintiffs claims. See, e.g., Alnutt v. Cleary, 913 F.Supp. 160, 168 (W.D.N.Y.1996) (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)); West v. Keane, No. 93 Civ. 6680, 1997 WL 266977 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1997). Rather, the conduct itself needs to be analyzed in the context of the constitutional rights at issue — in this case the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 6 . This Court independently considered whether the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were implicated. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (<HOLDING>). At first blush, this case seemed to be akin
holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed recognizing that we construe pro se complaints liberally holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings