Zielinski v. Martuscello

Background

Jeremy Zielinski, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Daniel Martuscello, Corrine Leone, and David Howard under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision provided computers, word processors, and printers for many activities but required ordinary law-library users to prepare legal documents on obsolete typewriters.

According to the complaint, the typewriters made legal documents difficult to prepare and prevented users from performing functions such as adding page numbers or labeling exhibits. Zielinski also alleged that copying the documents created significant costs, that legal materials were sometimes defaced, and that using the computers for legal work could lead to discipline and confiscation of the resulting documents. He claimed violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Zielinski did not oppose the motion.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. It focused on what it called impermissible group pleading: the complaint referred to the defendants collectively and did not identify the factual conduct of each defendant. Because the complaint did not give each defendant fair notice of the claims and the basis for those claims, the court dismissed Zielinski’s First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action without prejudice.

The court did not decide whether the alleged prison policy ultimately violated the First Amendment or the other constitutional provisions. It nevertheless briefly discussed the potential First Amendment issue. The court observed that the alleged difference between technology available for nonlegal writing and technology available for legal writing could raise content- or speaker-based concerns. It also stated that it was skeptical whether the defendants’ asserted correctional interests would justify the policy under the deferential standard used for constitutional claims involving incarcerated people. Those observations were not the basis for the disposition.

Next steps

The court granted Zielinski leave to file an amended complaint by June 10, 2025. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and would need to include any claims he wished to pursue, including allegations distinguishing each defendant’s personal involvement. If Zielinski failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. If he filed one, the defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by July 1, 2025, and the parties were directed to file a case-management plan and scheduling order by July 31, 2025.