Winters v. NYCDOC

Background

Jason Winters, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and Wardens Kisa Smalls and Sherma Dunbar for damages. He alleged that delays in sending and receiving mail while he was detained before trial at New York City Department of Correction facilities prevented him from meeting deadlines in a New York State Article 78 proceeding. That proceeding sought to challenge an order in his pending criminal case requiring him to submit to a buccal swab for DNA testing.

Winters alleged that he placed papers in the prison mailbox on April 5, 2019, but they were not sent to the United States Postal Service until April 12. Certified-mail records showed arrival at the state courthouse on April 19. He did not receive anything from the court until June 3, which was too late for him to serve the relevant parties. The DNA swab apparently had been scheduled for May 6, 2019, and Winters did not indicate that the date changed.

Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants moved to dismiss. They argued that Winters had not adequately alleged denial of access to the courts because his Article 78 proceeding was frivolous. They also argued that he had not alleged a basis for holding either individual defendant liable or for imposing municipal liability on the City. The court did not decide the defendants’ argument that Winters failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Access-to-the-Courts Claim

The court explained that an incarcerated person’s First Amendment right to reasonable access to the courts applies to claims challenging a conviction, a petition seeking release from custody, or conditions of confinement. A plaintiff must allege an actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim in one of those categories, along with deliberate or malicious interference by the responsible official.

The court held that Winters’s allegations did not show that his Article 78 proceeding concerned his conviction or conditions of confinement. The opinion stated that Winters did not say whether he had been convicted, whether there had been appeals, or whether the buccal-swab evidence was connected to any conviction. Because the DNA swab was taken while he was already incarcerated, the court also could not conclude that it affected his conditions of confinement. The court therefore found that the right of access to the courts did not cover the proceeding he attempted to bring.

The court further held that the underlying Article 78 proceeding was barred by New York law. Article 78 generally cannot be used to challenge a determination made in a civil or criminal matter, except in narrow circumstances involving a purely ministerial duty or action outside a judicial officer’s jurisdiction. The court found that Winters’s challenge to the DNA-swab order fit neither exception. It concluded that the underlying claim was frivolous because it lacked an arguable legal basis and therefore could not support an access-to-the-courts claim.

Other Deficiencies

The court separately found that Winters had not plausibly alleged that any defendant deliberately or maliciously caused the mail delays. His assertion that the injury resulted from deliberate conduct was conclusory and was not supported by specific facts linking either individual defendant to the delays.

The court also found that Winters had not adequately alleged municipal liability against New York City. He did not identify a persistent or widespread city policy or practice, or city-wide deliberate indifference, that caused the alleged constitutional violation. Alleged violations of the New York City Board of Correction’s Minimum Standards were not enough by themselves. The court also stated that without a constitutional injury caused by an individual city agent, there could be no municipal claim against the City.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Although pro se plaintiffs are often given an opportunity to amend, the court found that amendment would be futile. Winters had already been given permission to amend but did not file an amended complaint. The court reasoned that no amendment could overcome the fundamental problem that he had no constitutional right to pursue a frivolous Article 78 proceeding barred by New York law.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not separately state a dismissal-with-prejudice or dismissal-without-prejudice designation.