Joseph v. Annucci

Background

Rodney Joseph, proceeding without a lawyer, sued 44 employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, forcible touching, assault, retaliation, denial of due process, interference with religious practice, and excessive force. The represented defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Joseph did not respond, but the court still considered whether his factual allegations were legally sufficient.

Joseph alleged that prison medical staff removed his diabetic medications, that he later suffered heart attacks and underwent quadruple-bypass surgery, and that he did not receive recommended medication. He also alleged that Correctional Officer Wyatt retaliated against him after he filed a grievance, including by conducting an abusive pat frisk. Joseph claimed that prison officials retaliated by issuing a fabricated misbehavior report, taking away his prison job, restricting calls to his family, repeatedly searching his cell, denying him medication, and canceling a religious callout. He further alleged that Correctional Officer Elberth pulled his legs during a pat frisk after Joseph said his medical condition prevented him from complying, causing his chest and face to hit a wall and resulting in a minor heart attack.

Rulings

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

Claims against defendants named only in the caption. The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against 40 defendants whom Joseph named in the caption but did not connect to any alleged violation or injury. The court also dismissed Defendant Fuller without prejudice because Joseph alleged only that Fuller discussed Joseph’s intent to file a grievance against Wyatt, which did not show Fuller’s personal involvement in a constitutional violation.

Medical-care claim. The court dismissed without prejudice Joseph’s Eighth Amendment medical-indifference claim because he referred generally to “DOCCS Staff” and the “Medical Department” without alleging that a particular defendant participated in or deliberately disregarded his medical needs. The court identified Eggler, Bennett, Sidorowicz, and Wolf as defendants Joseph may have intended to sue because the complaint identified them as medical personnel, and granted leave to replead with additional facts about them.

Retaliation claims. The court dismissed with prejudice the First Amendment retaliation claims against Wyatt, Hanson, and any other defendants based on the January 11, 2018 pat frisk and cell searches. It concluded that cell searches and pat frisks, even if retaliatory, could not constitute the required adverse action for a retaliation claim. The court dismissed without prejudice the retaliation claim based on the loss of Joseph’s job assignment because the complaint did not identify the author of the alleged misbehavior report or plausibly connect that report to Joseph’s grievances. Joseph was allowed to replead that claim.

Speech and religious-practice claims. The court dismissed without prejudice Joseph’s First Amendment claim that prison staff prevented him from notifying or calling his family from an outside hospital because he did not identify any defendant personally involved. It also dismissed without prejudice his First Amendment free-exercise claim concerning cancellation of a religious callout because he did not identify an involved defendant or explain how often or why the callout was canceled. The court concluded that the allegations did not plausibly show a substantial burden on a sincerely held religious belief.

Excessive-force claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss Joseph’s Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against Elberth. Although a pat frisk ordinarily involves physical contact, the court found Joseph’s allegations sufficient at the pleading stage because he claimed that Elberth knew about his heart surgery and inability to move as instructed, continued to forcefully move Joseph’s legs after Joseph reported pain, and acted maliciously rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain discipline. The court also declined to apply qualified immunity at that stage.

Disposition and next steps

The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion and the defendants dismissed from the action. Joseph had 35 days from the opinion to file an amended complaint concerning claims dismissed without prejudice. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Joseph did not timely amend without showing good cause, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The court directed Elberth to answer the existing complaint by March 19, 2020, and directed the parties to submit a case-management plan by April 9, 2020.