Jackson v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-02013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Jackson v. Annucci, Judge Briccetti granted defendants’ partial dismissal motion, dismissing several claims while leaving the excessive-force claim pending.
Jackson’s claims for prolonged incarceration, inadequate medical care, grievance-process violations, and a Fourth Amendment violation were dismissed. The excessive-force claim against Sergeant Pachanco, Correction Officer Harris, and Correction Officer Thom remained pending; Annucci and Morton were terminated from the case.
What happened
In Jackson v. Annucci, Christopher Jackson, who was representing himself, sued prison officials under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that he was held 28 days past his original release date, received inadequate medical care after an alleged use of force, encountered problems with the prison grievance process, and experienced Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
The court dismissed Jackson’s claims concerning prolonged incarceration, inadequate medical care, the grievance process, and the Fourth Amendment. It ruled that 28 extra days did not amount to a serious Eighth Amendment violation, that Jackson did not adequately connect named defendants to a due-process violation involving his release, and that his medical-care allegation was too general. The court also said the Constitution does not guarantee a prison grievance system and found no plausible basis for the Fourth Amendment claim.
Judge Vincent Briccetti granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The excessive-force claim against Sergeant Pachanco, Correction Officer Harris, and Correction Officer Thom was not part of that motion and remained pending; those defendants were ordered to answer it. Anthony Annucci and Robert Morton were terminated from the case.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-02013
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
Christopher Jackson, representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Anthony Annucci, Robert Morton, Sergeant Pachanco, Correction Officer Harris, and Correction Officer Thom. Jackson alleged violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Jackson alleged that a September 18, 2018, time-computation sheet gave him a March 22, 2019, release date instead of his original November 30, 2018, release date. He said he contacted prison and parole personnel, filed grievances, and submitted a petition seeking immediate release. He was released on December 28, 2018, which was 28 days after the original release date.
Jackson also alleged that on October 19, 2018, while seeking help from the law library and experiencing an anxiety attack, he yelled. He claimed that Sergeant Pachanco, Correction Officer Harris, and Correction Officer Thom entered his cell, hit him with sticks, stomped on him, and used pepper spray, causing injuries to his knuckle and lower back and burns to his body. He further alleged that he did not receive proper medical treatment.
Rule 12(b)(6) standard
The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, but it did not accept bare legal conclusions. The court also construed Jackson’s allegations liberally because he was representing himself.
Prolonged-incarceration claims
The court dismissed Jackson’s Eighth Amendment claim based on his 28-day extension of incarceration. It held that this period was not a sufficiently serious constitutional deprivation under the cases cited in the opinion.
The court also dismissed Jackson’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process claim. Although the court recognized a liberty interest in being released when the maximum prison term ends, it found that Jackson did not plead the personal involvement of any named defendant in the alleged failure to release him on time. The allegation that Jackson wrote to Annucci did not explain what he wrote or whether Annucci took action that delayed the release.
Inadequate-medical-care claim
The court treated the complaint as asserting an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim concerning medical care. Such a claim requires allegations showing both a sufficiently serious medical need or inadequate care and a sufficiently culpable state of mind. The court dismissed the claim because the statement that Jackson did not receive “proper medical treatment” was conclusory and did not satisfy either requirement.
Grievance-process claim
The court dismissed the due-process claim concerning the prison grievance process. It held that the Constitution does not require prison grievance procedures, so an alleged violation of those procedures does not itself create a claim under Section 1983.
Fourth Amendment claim
The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim because it found no plausible factual basis for it in the complaint.
Disposition
Judge Briccetti granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The motion did not address Jackson’s excessive-force claim against Sergeant Pachanco, Correction Officer Harris, and Correction Officer Thom. The court ordered those defendants to answer that claim by March 9, 2020. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and to terminate Annucci and Morton from the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.