Gunn v. Annucci

Background

Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated at the time of the order, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. He proceeded without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Gunn alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, including by using excessive force in retaliation for his grievances and discouraging or preventing him from obtaining medical attention.

Gunn named Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci; Drs. Frederick Bernstein and Vishwas Bhopale; Deputy Superintendent Burnet; Sergeant Robert Cocuzza; several John Doe correctional emergency response team officers; Sergeant Dragoon; Superintendent Thomas R. Griffin; Deputy Commissioner Dr. Carl J. Koenigsmann; Registered Nurse Pauline Long-Kutoy; Superintendent William Lee; Deputy Superintendent Lynn Lilley; and Captain Thomas Melville.

Screening of Claims Against Supervisory Defendants

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the court to review prisoner complaints seeking relief from government entities or employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court explained that a person generally cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely because that person supervised someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The complaint must allege facts showing the defendant’s direct and personal involvement.

The court concluded that Gunn did not allege facts showing how Annucci, Burnet, Griffin, Koenigsmann, Lee, Lilley, or Melville were personally involved in the events underlying his claims. The court characterized many allegations as general legal conclusions rather than specific facts. The court also found that Gunn did not connect two reports about sexual abuse at Elmira Correctional Facility, published in 2006 and 2010, to the alleged events at Green Haven.

The court therefore dismissed Gunn’s claims against Annucci, Burnet, Griffin, Koenigsmann, Lee, Lilley, and Melville under the prisoner-screening statute, while granting Gunn leave to file an amended complaint with supporting facts.

Service and Further Proceedings

Because Gunn was permitted to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Bernstein, Bhopale, Cocuzza, Dragoon, and Long-Kutoy. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses were issued.

The court also ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify the John Doe correctional emergency response team officers described in the complaint and provide their identifying and service information within 60 days. Gunn was required to file an amended complaint naming any newly identified defendants within 30 days after receiving that information. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court determined that a local discovery rule applied and directed the five identified defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint. Gunn was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change.

Disposition

The court dismissed with leave to replead Gunn’s claims against Annucci, Burnet, Griffin, Koenigsmann, Lee, Lilley, and Melville. It directed service on Bernstein, Bhopale, Cocuzza, Dragoon, and Long-Kutoy; ordered the Attorney General to identify the John Doe defendants; and required the five identified defendants to comply with the local discovery rule. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Judge Cathy Seibel issued the order on April 16, 2020.