Baez v. Malin

Background

Candido Baez, who was representing himself, sued numerous Department of Corrections and Community Supervision officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. He also appeared to invoke a federal criminal statute concerning false statements, but the opinion focused on the civil claims and the defendants’ motion.

Baez’s allegations arose from his incarceration at Sing Sing and Greene correctional facilities. He alleged problems involving delays in the Family Reunion Program, removal from a law-library position, retaliation for grievances, transfer to Greene, medical and disability-related issues, prison conditions including secondhand smoke, sanctions, grievance procedures, and requests for records.

The defendants moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). They argued that the amended complaint violated the rule requiring a short and plain statement, that some damages claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that claims concerning Greene should be dismissed, severed, or transferred to the Northern District of New York.

Rule 8 and official-capacity allegations

The court rejected the argument that the amended complaint violated Rule 8. Although the complaint was lengthy and included many exhibits, the court concluded that it gave the defendants fair notice of the claims. The court therefore did not dismiss the amended complaint on that basis.

The court construed Baez’s statement that he intended to sue certain defendants in both their individual and official capacities as a request to file a second amended complaint. Because this was the first adjudication of his claims, the court granted that request. The court allowed him to file a second amended complaint against all defendants in their official and individual capacities within 30 days. The court stated that the new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints and warned that failing to file it could result in dismissal of certain claims with prejudice.

Venue and transfer

The court denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the action for improper venue. It held that venue was proper in the Southern District because all defendants were treated as residents of New York for venue purposes, and federal law permits venue in a district where any defendant resides when all defendants reside in the same state.

The court nevertheless concluded that some claims should be severed, meaning separated from the other claims, and transferred under § 1404(a). It found that the claims arising from Greene involved different facts, witnesses, documents, and defendants from the claims arising at Sing Sing. The court also considered that Baez was incarcerated at Greene, the Greene defendants were located in the Northern District, and transferring the Greene-related claims could make the litigation more efficient.

The court ordered that all claims related to Baez’s incarceration at Greene and against the Greene defendants be severed and transferred to the Northern District of New York, except for claims against Mitchell, Heywood, MacTavish, and Vann. The claims concerning Sing Sing, the alleged retaliatory transfer, and Baez’s Freedom of Information Law request to Mitchell—including the claims against Mitchell, Heywood, MacTavish, and Vann—were to remain in the Southern District.

Disposition

The court stated that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court denied dismissal for improper venue, granted the separation and transfer of the specified Greene-related claims, and granted Baez permission to file a second amended complaint. The opinion did not resolve the underlying civil-rights, disability, prison-condition, or records-access claims on their merits.