Brown v. Annucci

Background

Carl Brown, proceeding without a lawyer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims against a person acting under state authority for violating constitutional rights. The opinion addresses only Lieutenant Susan Hann’s motion to dismiss. Brown alleged that Corrections Officer Zikiya Reyes-Jordan kicked him and reinjured his arm while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. After Brown complained about Reyes-Jordan, Brown alleged that Hann threatened to have him assaulted and transferred and filed two false misbehavior reports against him.

Brown’s claims against Hann included a First Amendment retaliation claim and a false-report claim based on retaliation. The Second Amended Complaint was the operative complaint. Hann moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a claim for relief.

False-Report Claim

The court explained that a prisoner generally has no constitutional right to be free from false accusations in a misbehavior report by themselves. A false-report claim can proceed, however, when the report is alleged to be part of retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. The court found that Brown’s opposition papers supplied details that were vague or missing from the complaint, including that Hann made threats and filed two false reports after Brown filed complaints against Reyes-Jordan.

The court treated those allegations as sufficient to plausibly allege that Brown engaged in protected First Amendment activity and suffered adverse actions because of it. The court therefore denied Hann’s motion to dismiss the false-report claim.

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

To plead First Amendment retaliation, Brown had to allege protected activity, Hann’s awareness of that activity, an adverse action, and a connection between the activity and the adverse action. The court found that Brown sufficiently alleged each element: he filed a complaint against Reyes-Jordan; Hann knew about it; Hann allegedly threatened him and filed a false report; and Brown alleged that these actions followed his complaint and were intended as retaliation.

The court therefore declined to dismiss Brown’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect government officials from civil damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, or when a reasonable official could have believed the conduct was lawful. The court found that Brown had sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation, that his right to be free from retaliation for protected conduct was clearly established when the alleged conduct occurred, and that it would not have been objectively reasonable for Hann to believe that retaliating against Brown was lawful.

The court therefore found that Hann was not entitled to a qualified-immunity defense against Brown’s false-report and First Amendment retaliation claims at this stage.

Disposition

The court denied Susan Hann’s motion to dismiss Brown’s Second Amended Complaint. Hann was directed to file an answer by June 24, 2025. The parties were directed to confer and file a case-management plan and scheduling order by July 15, 2025. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail the order to Brown.