Barry v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

Background

Oumar Barry, who was incarcerated at Shawangunk Correctional Facility and was representing himself, brought claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The court had previously dismissed Barry’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and directed service on several individual defendants. After a conference about the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss, the court allowed Barry to amend his complaint.

Barry’s amended complaint dropped his claims against Nurse A. Sewell and added or reasserted claims against multiple defendants. These included officials connected to Sing Sing Correctional Facility, defendants connected to Shawangunk, his assigned defense counsel Eric Besso, Suffolk County District Attorney Raymond A. Tierney, Suffolk County Judge Anthony Senft, and the Nassau and Suffolk County sheriffs and correctional-facility wardens. Barry also named several unidentified defendants.

Court’s analysis

Claims concerning Shawangunk. The court held that Barry’s claims concerning alleged inadequate medical care, religious practice, and access to Securus content at Shawangunk went beyond the limited permission to amend. The court also determined that those allegations were unrelated to the original claims concerning an alleged failure to protect Barry from abuse at Sing Sing. The court stated that claims concerning conduct at Shawangunk should be brought in a separate action in the Northern District of New York.

Eric Besso. The court dismissed the claims against Besso. A lawyer performing traditional defense-counsel functions generally is not acting under state law for purposes of Section 1983. The court found that Barry’s allegation that Besso conspired with state officials was unsupported by specific facts. The court also declined to allow amendment as to Besso because the allegations concerning his conduct in Suffolk County were unrelated to the Sing Sing claims.

Raymond A. Tierney. The court dismissed the claims against Tierney, the Suffolk County District Attorney. It found no specific allegations of misconduct and explained that prosecutors generally have absolute immunity from civil suits for conduct closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The dismissal was without leave to amend.

Judge Anthony Senft. The court dismissed the claims against Senft. The conduct challenged by Barry—Senft’s decision about whether adjournments counted against Barry under the Speedy Trial Act—was a judicial action protected by absolute judicial immunity. The court also held that this immunity applied to Barry’s request for a declaration concerning Senft’s past conduct. The dismissal was without leave to replead.

Nassau and Suffolk defendants. The court dismissed Barry’s claims against the Nassau and Suffolk County sheriffs and wardens, allowing him to replead them in a second amended complaint. The court found that Barry did not allege facts showing that these defendants had a role in choosing his housing or authority to assign him to another facility. It further stated that a prisoner generally has no constitutional or state-law right to confinement at a particular prison facility.

Unidentified defendants. Because Barry was representing himself, the court directed the New York State Attorney General to identify John Doe 1, John Doe 5, the Sing Sing Deputy Superintendent of Administration, the Sing Sing Deputy Superintendent of Programs, and the correction officers allegedly present in the Sing Sing yard when Barry was attacked. The Attorney General must provide the names and service addresses within 60 days of the order. Barry must file a second amended complaint within 30 days after receiving the information. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint, and the court will screen it before deciding whether to direct service.

Order and disposition

The court dismissed the claims against B. Thorpe, L. Brennan, Dr. Win, Dr. Friel, Eric Besso, Raymond A. Tierney, Hon. Anthony Senft, and John Does 6 through 9. It dismissed the claims against the Nassau and Suffolk County sheriffs and wardens with leave to replead in the second amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk to terminate John Doe 2 and reinstate Babu Thumpayil as a defendant. It postponed the deadline for the defendants’ motion to dismiss or answer until after Barry files a second amended complaint. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Barry permission to appeal without prepaying fees.