Dr. Muhammad v. Annucci

Background

Dr. Muhammad, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that on December 9, 2017, he attempted to visit an inmate at Sullivan Correctional Facility. He alleged that he had an impaired right leg and needed a cane to walk. The facility did not permit him to use his handmade cane. Although Defendant Rohan allegedly acknowledged that the facility had substitute canes for visitors, Rohan allegedly refused to provide one and refused to contact supervisors. Dr. Muhammad alleged that the incident caused migraine headaches and depression.

He sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Anthony J. Annucci, William Keyser, Gary Sipple, and Sergeant Rohan under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He requested declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim.

Analysis

The report treated Dr. Muhammad’s reference to intentional infliction of emotional distress as describing his injuries, rather than as a separate claim, because he stated that his case was based solely on the ADA. It also concluded that he was not asserting an independent claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The report concluded that Title II of the ADA does not permit suits against state officials in their individual capacities. It therefore recommended dismissing the claims for damages against Annucci, Keyser, Sipple, and Rohan in their individual capacities. It also explained that state sovereign immunity generally bars money-damage claims against New York and officials sued in their official capacities, subject to limits recognized in prior Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions.

The report assumed for purposes of the motion that Dr. Muhammad was a qualified individual with a disability. It found that refusing to let him use his own handmade cane did not state an ADA claim because the facility had substitute canes and he did not allege that those canes were inadequate. A reasonable accommodation does not necessarily have to be the accommodation a person prefers.

The report treated the refusal to provide a substitute cane differently. Because the complaint alleged that a substitute cane was available but was not provided, the report concluded that the allegation could present an ADA claim at the pleading stage. However, it found that Dr. Muhammad had not alleged enough facts showing discriminatory intent or a violation of a constitutional right to support money damages against the state or its officials. The report also concluded that the ADA does not allow punitive damages in private suits.

The report separately concluded that Dr. Muhammad lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief. He alleged only one past incident, did not allege that he regularly visited the facility or intended to return, and did not allege an ongoing policy of denying substitute canes. The report therefore recommended dismissal of those requests under Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s power to hear a claim.

The report found that Dr. Muhammad had not shown proper service of process. His initial proofs showed service by certified mail alone, which was not a valid method under the applicable rules. Other proofs did not provide enough information to determine whether service complied with the rules. Nevertheless, because the report recommended dismissal on other grounds and allowed amendment, it recommended denying the Rule 12(b)(5) motion as moot.

Recommendation and procedural status

Judge Wang recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. Specifically, she recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing to seek equitable relief and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for money damages, with leave to replead. She recommended that the Rule 12(b)(5) motion be denied as moot.

The report stated that amendment would be futile as to the individual-capacity damages claims and the refusal to permit use of the handmade cane. It recommended allowing amendment of the claim concerning refusal to provide the substitute cane because additional facts might show discriminatory intent or a constitutional violation, and additional facts might establish standing for future injunctive relief. The report was a recommendation to District Judge George B. Daniels, and the parties were given fourteen days after receiving it to file objections.