Labossiere v. Downstate Correctional Facility

Background

Wilfred Labossiere, proceeding without a lawyer, sued N. Baxter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Baxter violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs, violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for filing a prison grievance, and violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying him due process in connection with disciplinary proceedings.

Labossiere alleged that he had rectal surgery on June 29, 2019, and was directed to shower after bowel movements to keep the surgical area clean and prevent infection. He alleged that on July 13, 2019, Baxter refused two requests to leave his cell and shower. Labossiere later filed a grievance about the incident.

In December 2019, marijuana was found in Labossiere’s locker. He was confined in keeplock pending a disciplinary hearing, pleaded guilty, and received a disposition of 30 days in keeplock, with 20 days suspended. The disposition was later reversed, although the opinion states that no explanation for the reversal was provided. Labossiere filed this federal case in December 2021. The court had previously dismissed claims against Downstate Correctional Facility and a John Doe defendant. The remaining defendant, N. Baxter, moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Labossiere did not file an opposition after receiving an extension of time.

Legal standard

The court explained that a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is evaluated under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The complaint must contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to make a claim for relief plausible. Because Labossiere was representing himself, the court read his allegations liberally, but that did not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive legal requirements.

Deliberate indifference

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim. A deliberate-indifference claim involving medical needs requires facts showing both an objectively serious medical deprivation and that the defendant knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court held that Labossiere did not plausibly allege that being unable to shower during Baxter’s shift caused extreme pain, worsened his condition, affected the surgical area, harmed his recovery, or exposed him to an unreasonable risk of future harm. The court also found that Labossiere did not allege facts showing that Baxter knew about his medical condition or the instruction to shower after bowel movements. The fact that an unnamed block officer had received the shower instruction two days earlier was insufficient to show Baxter’s awareness. The deliberate-indifference claim was therefore dismissed.

Retaliation

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim. Filing a prison grievance is protected conduct, and Labossiere identified his later keeplock confinement as the adverse action. But the court found that the five-month gap between the grievance and the disciplinary incident, without additional facts showing retaliatory motive or a connection between the two events, was insufficient to establish causation. The court also noted that Labossiere did not allege that Baxter filed the misbehavior report because of the grievance. The retaliation claim was dismissed.

Due process

The court dismissed the due process claim. It stated that a prisoner challenging disciplinary confinement must plausibly allege both a protected liberty interest and a procedural defect. The court held that 10 days of keeplock, without allegations of an unusually severe hardship, was insufficient to establish a protected liberty interest. The due process claim was therefore dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted Baxter’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Labossiere’s complaint. The court allowed Labossiere to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the Opinion and Order. Any amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include all claims, defendants, and factual allegations Labossiere wants the court to consider. The court stated that the claims may be dismissed with prejudice if he does not timely amend. The court did not reach Baxter’s qualified-immunity arguments.