Monroe v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision et al
Filing
27
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 26 ) is accepted for filing and is deemed the operative pleading. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall (i) revise the docket to reflect that Annucci, Kocienski and Tyo are de fendants in this action; and (ii) revise the docket to reflect that Officer K and Officer T are no longer defendants in this action. ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Annucci are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ORDERED that Annucci is dismissed as a defendant herein. ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against Kocienski and Tyo survive review a nd require a response. ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue summonses and forward them, along with copies of the Amended Complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the defendants. The Clerk shall forward a copy of the summonses and Amended Complaint to the Attorney General's Office, together with a copy of this Decision and Order. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 7/20/18. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )
\UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL J. MONROE
Plaintiff,
v.
9:17-CV-1050
(GTS/DEP)
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
MICHAEL J. MOORE
16-A-2258
Plaintiff, pro se
Downstate Correctional Facility
Box F
Fishkill, NY 12524
GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Michael J. Monroe ("Plaintiff"), commenced this pro se action by filing a civil
rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), together with an application
to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."); Dkt. No. 10 ("IFP Application"). In the
Complaint, Plaintiff set forth claims arising out of his confinement in the custody of the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") at Franklin
Correctional Facility ("Franklin C.F."). See Compl., generally.
By Decision and Order filed on December 27, 2017 (the "December Order"), Plaintiff's
IFP Application was granted. Dkt. No. 11. After reviewing the Complaint in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court found that Plaintiff's First
Amendment claims against defendants Officer K and Officer T survived sua sponte review
and required a response. Id. at 5-7. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against
defendant Commissioner Anthony Annucci ("Annucci") for lack of personal involvement in the
alleged constitutional violation.1 Id. at 10.
Pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d. Cir. 1997) (per curiam), in order to
assist Plaintiff in identifying the John Doe defendants, the Court requested that the Office of
the Attorney General attempt to ascertain the full names of the John Doe defendants. Dkt.
No. 11 at 11. The Attorney General's Office was also requested, to the extent that it was able
to identify either of the John Doe defendants, to provide the addresses where the defendants
might be served.2 Id.
By Letter Brief dated May 11, 2018, submitted in response to the December Order,
the Attorney General's Office provided Plaintiff with information regarding the identities of the
John Doe defendants included in the Complaint. Dkt. No. 24. In an Order dated June 4,
2018, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of the original Complaint
and a blank form complaint to Plaintiff to assist Plaintiff with filing an Amended Complaint that
1
The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), with prejudice and concluded that Plaintiff's 1983 claims for monetary
damages against DOCCS were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Dkt. No. 11 at 9. Plaintiff does not
restate these claims in the Amended Complaint.
2
The Attorney General's Office was advised that it need not undertake to defend or indemnify
these individuals at this juncture. The December Order was intended merely to provide a means by which
Plaintiff may name and properly serve the defendants as instructed by the Second Circuit in Valentin.
2
correctly identified the John Doe Defendants named in his original Complaint. Dkt. No. 26.
Presently before the Court for review is Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 26
("Am. Compl.").
II.
DISCUSSION
The legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) was discussed at length in the December Order and it
will not be restated in this Decision and Order. See Dkt. No. 11 at 2-4. Taking into account
Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court construes the allegations in the Amended Complaint with
the utmost leniency. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972) (holding that a
pro se litigant's complaint is to be held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.").
III.
REVIEW OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
The facts asserted in the Amended Complaint are identical to those plead in the
original Complaint with respect to his religious claims. On June 2, 2017, defendant
Corrections Officer Scott Kocienski ("Kocienski") (previously identified as "Officer K") arrived
at Plaintiff's housing unit to take Plaintiff for a urine test. Am. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff told
Kocienski that he was Muslim and fasting for the month of Ramadan. Id. Kocienski escorted
Plaintiff to the medical department and told Plaintiff that if he refused to drink water and
provide a urine sample, he would receive a misbehavior report (equivalent to a positive urine
test) and Special Housing Unit ("SHU") confinement. Id. Plaintiff complied with the directive
so that he could participate in Ramadan services. Id.
On June 14, 2017, defendant Corrections Officer Bryan Tyo ("Tyo") (previously
identified as "Officer T") arrived at Plaintiff's housing unit to escort him to another urine test.
3
Am. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff notified Tyo that he was Muslim and fasting for the month. Id. at 5.
Tyo told Plaintiff that if he did not provide a sample, he would receive a misbehavior report for
"dirty urine" and SHU time. Id. Plaintiff complied with the order so that he could participate in
Ramadan services. Id.
Plaintiff filed a grievance related to the urinalysis testing and appealed the grievances
to Annucci. Am. Compl. at 5. Annucci did not respond. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages. See id.
IV.
ANALYSIS
A.
First Amendment Claims
As a result of the review of the original Complaint, the Court held that Plaintiff's First
Amendment claims against Officer K and Officer T required a response. With the Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff repeats those claims and substitutes Kocienski and Tyo for the
unidentified defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds that the First Amendment claims
against Kocienski and Tyo survive sua sponte review and require a response. In so ruling,
the Court expresses no opinion as to whether this claim can withstand a properly filed motion
to dismiss or for summary judgment.
B.
Claims Against Annucci
With the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff realleges his claims against Annucci, with
additional factual allegations.3 The law related to personal involvement and supervisory
officials was discussed in the December Order and will not be restated herein. Dkt. No. 11 at
9-10. In the December Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against
3
The Clerk of the Court is directed to add Annucci as a defendant in this action.
4
Annucci holding:
Plaintiff does not allege that Annucci participated in the alleged
wrongdoing or that he notified Annucci of the alleged
constitutional violations by way of grievances, appeals, or
correspondence. The Complaint does not provide any
information to suggest that any of the Colon factors are
applicable. Thus, Plaintiff's claims against Annucci are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
Dkt. No. 11 at 10.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to correct the deficiencies in this claim,
relying upon the second Colon factor. See Am. Compl. at 5. Plaintiff claims that he notified
Annucci of the alleged violations through his appeal, and Annucci failed to respond. See id.
The Second Circuit has cautioned against dismissing claims for failure to allege
personal involvement without granting leave to amend where the plaintiff may allege that an
official failed to respond to a letter of complaint. Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133,
141 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that a prisoner's letter of complaint sent to a prison warden "at an
appropriate address and by appropriate means" would suffice to state facts plausibly
suggesting personal involvement). While cognizant of Grullon, the Court finds that, as
presently plead, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts suggesting that Annucci was personally
involved in any constitutional deprivation. Plaintiff claims that he sent a an appeal to Annucci
but fails to allege where the appeal was sent, when it was sent, or by what means it was
forwarded. Without more, the allegations are not enough to allege that Annucci was
personally involved in any constitutional deprivation. See Bridgewater v. Taylor, 698
F.Supp.2d 351, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Guillory v. Cuomo, 616 F. App'x 12, 14 (2d Cir. 2015)
(summary order).
5
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Annucci are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
V.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 26) is accepted for filing and is
deemed the operative pleading; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall (i) revise the docket to reflect that Annucci,
Kocienski and Tyo are defendants in this action; and (ii) revise the docket to reflect that
Officer K and Officer T are no longer defendants in this action; and it is further;
ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Annucci are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Annucci is dismissed as a defendant herein; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against Kocienski and Tyo survive
review and require a response; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue summonses and forward them, along with copies
of the Amended Complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the defendants.
The Clerk shall forward a copy of the summonses and Amended Complaint to the Attorney
General's Office, together with a copy of this Decision and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that a response to the Amended Complaint be filed by the defendants or
their counsel, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
6
ORDERED that all pleadings, motions and other documents relating to this action
must bear the case number assigned to this action and be filed with the Clerk of the United
States District Court, Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, 100 S.
Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. Any paper sent by a party to the Court or
the Clerk must be accompanied by a certificate showing that a true and correct copy of
same was served on all opposing parties or their counsel. Any document received by
the Clerk or the Court which does not include a proper certificate of service will be
stricken from the docket. Plaintiff must comply with any requests by the Clerk’s Office for
any documents that are necessary to maintain this action. All parties must comply with Local
Rule 7.1 of the Northern District of New York in filing motions. Plaintiff is also required to
promptly notify the Clerk’s Office and all parties or their counsel, in writing, of any
change in his address; their failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his action;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on
Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.
Dated:
July 20, 2018
Syracuse, NY
________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?