White v. Gutwein

Background

Mike White, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants denied him procedural due process during a disciplinary proceeding and failed to protect him from an assault. The court had already granted White permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Screening Standard

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court screened the complaint to determine whether any claim was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or was outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make the claims plausible.

Claims Against Commissioner Annucci

The court dismissed White’s § 1983 claims against Commissioner Annucci in both his official and personal capacities. As to the official-capacity claims for damages, the court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims because New York had not waived its immunity and Congress had not eliminated that immunity through § 1983. The court noted that White sought only damages.

As to the personal-capacity claims, the court held that White did not allege facts plausibly showing that Annucci had direct involvement in, knowledge of, or responsibility for the alleged violations. The court therefore dismissed all § 1983 claims against Annucci.

Service and Discovery

Because White was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve the necessary papers on Eric Gutwein, C. Story, D. Venettozzi, and T. Griffin. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued. It also warned that White had to notify the court of any address change and that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

The court applied Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified discovery requests. The defendants were ordered to serve responses within 120 days after service of the complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed White’s § 1983 claims against Commissioner Annucci in both his official and individual capacities. It directed service on the other named defendants and held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied to the action. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.