Kravitz v. State of New York

Background

Jay S. Kravitz brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against certain government officials for constitutional violations. He alleged that the defendants prevented him from observing Shavuot while he was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility. The court had previously allowed Kravitz’s First Amendment free-exercise claim to proceed against at least some defendants.

After delays involving status conferences and the filing of an amended complaint, most defendants answered the Third Amended Complaint. Anthony Annucci instead moved to dismiss any claims against him. Kravitz filed an affidavit stating that he conceded Annucci should be dismissed. Because Kravitz was representing himself, the court independently reviewed Annucci’s arguments.

Annucci’s Official-Capacity Claims

The court held that any damages claim against Annucci in his official capacity was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. That constitutional protection generally prevents individuals from suing a state in federal court without the state’s consent. A damages claim against a state official in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the state itself. The court stated that New York had not consented to this type of federal lawsuit and that Section 1983 did not remove the state’s immunity. The court therefore dismissed any official-capacity damages claim against Annucci.

Annucci’s Personal-Capacity Claims

The court also held that the Third Amended Complaint did not plausibly allege Annucci’s personal involvement in any constitutional violation. A government official generally cannot be held individually liable under Section 1983 merely because of the official’s supervisory position or because the official’s subordinates allegedly committed wrongdoing. The complaint mentioned Annucci only once, identifying him as the acting commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections, but it did not allege facts showing that he participated in, learned of and failed to remedy, created, permitted, or negligently supervised the alleged violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims against Annucci. The action continued against the other defendants. The court scheduled a telephonic status conference to address discovery and case management, ordered defense counsel to mail the order to Kravitz and certify that mailing, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Annucci’s motion.