Dr. Muhammad v. Annucci

Background

Dr. Muhammad, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Anthony J. Annucci, William Keyser, Gary Sipple, Sergeant Rohan, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. He relied on the Americans with Disabilities Act and alleged that, during a December 9, 2017 visit to Sullivan Correctional Facility, he was not allowed to use his handmade cane. He alleged that Rohan told him the facility had substitute canes for visitors but refused to provide one or contact a superior. He also alleged that Rohan refused to read a letter from his doctor concerning the handmade cane. Dr. Muhammad claimed that the incident caused migraine headaches and depression.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). Magistrate Judge Wang recommended granting the motion and allowing Dr. Muhammad to amend. No party objected. Judge Daniels reviewed the recommendation for clear error and adopted it.

Claims and analysis

Individual-capacity claims. The court held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not allow a plaintiff to sue state officials in their individual capacities. It therefore dismissed the claims against Annucci, Keyser, and Sipple in their individual capacities.

Monetary and punitive damages. The court dismissed the claims for monetary relief. It explained that, even assuming Dr. Muhammad qualified as an individual with a disability, his allegations did not satisfy either of the legal standards discussed for seeking damages from the State. His allegations that the defendants acted discriminatorily were conclusory. The existence of substitute canes weakened his theory that refusing to allow the handmade cane was discriminatory. Although the Report found that the allegation that defendants refused to provide a substitute cane was sufficient to allege an ADA violation, Dr. Muhammad did not allege that the refusal was because of his disability, that similarly situated people were allowed to use substitute canes, or facts showing disability-based hostility or ill will. The court also held that private ADA suits do not permit punitive damages and dismissed the claim for that relief.

Equitable relief. The court dismissed the request for declaratory or other equitable relief under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction. To have standing for that relief, Dr. Muhammad had to allege a likelihood of future harm and an official policy or equivalent practice. The court found that he alleged neither a likelihood that the harm would happen again nor an intention to visit the facility again. A past injury alone was not enough.

The court noted that, because it adopted the recommendation to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), it did not need to decide the defendants’ arguments under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) concerning personal jurisdiction and insufficient service.

Disposition

Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s Report and Recommendation and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court granted Dr. Muhammad leave to amend his complaint and granted his request for an extension of time to file the amended complaint. The deadline set by the court was April 25, 2020. The opinion does not describe the dismissal as with or without prejudice.