Kelly v. Miller

Background

Shytique Kelly filed this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself and received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court previously dismissed his original complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed him to amend.

In the amended complaint, Kelly alleged that:

- Mark Miller imposed a policy at Green Haven Correctional Facility from December 28, 2022, through November 2023 that replaced recreation time and deprived Kelly of fresh air and exercise. - Andrew Frazier created a policy at Coxsackie Correctional Facility from January 22, 2024, through March 25, 2024, that violated New York’s Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act and deprived Kelly of outdoor recreation. - Lynn Lilley failed to comply with that law at Eastern Correctional Facility from December 23, 2024, through February 26, 2025, and deprived Kelly of outdoor recreation.

Kelly alleged muscle aches, discomfort, stiffness, emotional distress, and pain and suffering. The court understood the amended complaint to assert Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims and related state-law claims, and to seek damages and injunctive relief.

Transfer of Miller-Related Claims

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which permits a court to separate claims, and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), concerning transfer. It found that the claims arising from Green Haven were separate from the claims arising from Coxsackie and Eastern and would require different witnesses and documents. The court therefore severed all claims against Miller and transferred them to the Southern District of New York.

The court expressly made no ruling on whether the claims against Miller were legally sufficient. It left that determination to the Southern District of New York.

Dismissal of Claims Retained in the Northern District

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims against Frazier and Lilley during its required screening of the amended complaint. The court explained that a conditions-of-confinement claim requires facts showing both a serious deprivation of a basic human need and that the defendant knowingly disregarded a serious risk to the prisoner’s health or safety.

The court held that Kelly’s allegations did not provide enough facts to show a constitutional violation. Kelly alleged denial of outdoor recreation for about three months as to Frazier and about two months as to Lilley, but he did not allege that he was denied all meaningful opportunity to exercise or deprived of a basic human need.

The court also held that the amended complaint did not adequately allege Frazier’s or Lilley’s personal involvement. According to the court, Kelly alleged only that they had supervisory roles and were connected to policies. He did not allege that he personally spoke with, wrote to, or interacted with either defendant, or that either defendant was present during a violation. The court found those allegations conclusory and insufficient.

State-Law Claims and Further Amendment

Kelly alleged that the defendants’ policies violated New York’s Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act. Because the related federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over those claims.

The court noted that Kelly had already received one opportunity to amend and found that the amended complaint had not corrected the problems identified in the earlier order. It therefore found that any further amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court accepted the amended complaint as the operative pleading, severed and transferred all claims against Miller to the Southern District of New York without ruling on their sufficiency, and dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). The clerk was directed to enter judgment. The court also waived the usual fourteen-day waiting period for the transfer.