Animashaun v. Afify et al

Filing 18

ORDER The Clerk of Court is directed to cause the United States Marshal to serve copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, and this Order upon Defendants. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 7/8/2019. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff.) (LB)

PS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAMI LOLA ANIMASHAUN,
Plaintiff,
-v-

17-CV-6010 DGL
ORDER

IMAM AFIFY AND JEFF MCKOY,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Damilola Animashaun ("Plaintiff"), an inmate currently confined at
the Mid-State Correctional Facility, has filed this action seeking relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to practice his religion.
Docket Item 1. After granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court screened the original Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A and
dismissed Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Afify, for lack of personal involvement,
with leave to file an amended complaint.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which is also subject to
initially screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Docket Item 12. For the
reasons that follow, the Amended Complaint sufficient to proceed to service against
both Defendants.
DISCUSSION

I.

Legal Standard

Section 1915 "provide[s] an efficient means by which a court can screen for and
dismiss legally insufficient claims." Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007)

1

(citing Shakur v. Se/sky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2004)). Section 1915A(b) provides
that the Court shall dismiss a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity if, at
any time, the Court determines that the action (1) fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). Generally, the Court will afford a prose
plaintiff an opportunity to amend or to be heard prior to dismissal "unless the court can
rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would
succeed in stating a claim." Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639 (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, leave to amend pleadings is properly denied where amendment would be
futile.

See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000); Ruffolo v.

Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Where it appears that granting
leave to amend is unlikely to be productive, ... it is not an abuse of discretion to deny
leave to amend.").
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and its laws; (2) by a
person acting under the color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "Section 1983 itself
creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation
of rights established elsewhere." Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993).

II.

The Amended Complaint

The Amended Complaint largely reiterates Plaintiff's allegations that he was
prohibited from registering as a Rastafarian while confined to the special housing unit
("SHU") during his incarceration at the Southport Correctional Facility ("Southport") in

2

December 2016. Docket Item 13 at 2. As a result, he was denied the right to practice
his Rastafari religion, receive the designated religious meals, and grow dreadlocks. Id.
On December 5, 2016, Defendant Afify issued a letter to Plaintiff stating:
I checked with your records and found that your confinement in SHU
began on 8118116 would [sic]. Confirm your transfer SHU to SHU as
stated in your records. However, you need to wait until 8/18/17 for your
next change of religion as specified in [Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision ("DOCCS")] (Directive# 4202. Or after you get
out of the SHU).
Id. at 2, 5.

In the second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant McKoy approved
the policy contained in DOCCS Directive No. 4202 and thereby violated the First
Amendment by barring inmates from registering or changing their religious designation
while confined in the SHU. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further asserts that, due to this policy, he
was required to wait well over one year to change his religious registration. Id.

Ill.

First Amendment Claims

The First Amendment rights of inmates to the free exercise of religion "are not as
extensive as the rights enjoyed by an ordinary citizen. Rather, a prison inmate 'retains
those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or
with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.' " Washington v.
Afify, 968 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Shakur v. Se/sky, 391 F.3d

106, 113 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582, 588 (2d Cir. 2003)
("Balanced against the constitutional protections afforded prison inmates . . . are the
interests of prison officials charged with complex duties arising from administration of
the penal system") (internal quotation marks omitted).

For instance, "it is well-

established that the enforcement of DOCS policies which restrict inmates in SHU from
3

attending congregate religious services is rationally related to a valid penological
interest and is the least restrictive means of serving that interest." Lewis v. Zon, 920 F.
Supp. 2d 379, 386 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that he was prevented: from practicing Rastafari; changing his
religious registration to Rastafarian; receiving the applicable religious meals; and
obtaining a permit to grow dreadlocks during his SHU confinement. Further, although
Plaintiff had already waited the requisite 12 months to change his religious designation,
upon being admitted to the SHU, he then had to wait an additional nine months until his
SHU sentence ended.
As discussed in the Court's August 29, 2017 order, although religious registration
has been held to be a reasonable limitation on the accommodation of religious practices
in prison, see Jackson-Bey v. Hans/maier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096-97 (2d Cir. 1997), it has
been held that an inmate's assertion that he was prevented from changing his religious
designation during his SHU confinement was sufficient to state a First Amendment
claim. See Gibson v. Yackeren, No. 11-CV-294S, 2013 WL 3338645, at *3 (W.D.N.Y.
July 2, 2013) ("[A]ny error in failing to designate [the prisoner] as Jewish, ... logically
extend[ed] to [his] inability to practice his religion); but see Black v. Fischer, No.
CIVA908CV0231DNHDEP, 2010 WL 1133221, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2010), report

and recommendation adopted, No. 908-CV-0231 DNH, 2010 WL 1171125 (N.D.N.Y.
Mar. 23, 2010) (granting summary judgment to prison officials in light of "a lack of any
clear contrary guidance from either the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit" on the
restriction of SHU inmates' ability to change religious designation in Directive No. 4202).

4

The Court concludes that because Plaintiff has alleged he was unable to practice
his religion due to the restriction placed on SHU inmates in Directive No. 4202, his First
Amendment claim may proceed against both Defendants.
ORDER
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that the Clerk of Court is directed to cause the United
States Marshals Service to serve copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, and
this Order upon Defendants without Plaintiff's payment therefor, unpaid fees to be
recoverable if this action terminates by monetary award in Plaintitrs favor;
FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court utilize the mailing address for non-inmate mail
provided by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision's website, http://www.doccs.ny.gov/faclist.html., as needed;
FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court is also directed to forward a copy of this Order
by email to Ted O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General in Charge, Rochester Regional
Office <[e-mail]>; and
FURTHER, that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the Defendant is directed
to answer the Complaint upon service.
SO ORDERED.

David G. Larimer
United States District Judge

DATED:~

Q

I

2019

OCSter, NY

5