Castillo v. Hart

Background

Anthony Castillo, who was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility when he filed the case, brought the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He alleged harassment occurring at Clinton Correctional Facility and Green Haven Correctional Facility during periods from May 2017 through 2018 and from September 2019 through January 2020. The complaint did not identify which allegations occurred at which facility. The two individual defendants, Correction Officer Hart and Sergeant Johnson, worked at Green Haven.

Castillo alleged that officers called him “Taliban” and “terrorist,” that an officer repeatedly opened his cell, that Sergeant Johnson used profanity when directing him to sit down instead of going to the bathroom, and that Officer Hart threatened him and used insulting language. Castillo also alleged that Hart harassed him during Ramadan while he was fasting. On the complaint form, Castillo answered “n/a” when asked about injuries. He sought $125,000 in damages.

Screening standard

Because Castillo was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants and had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the court was required to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible.

Claims against New York State

The court held that Castillo’s § 1983 claims against New York State were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. That constitutional protection generally prevents a state from being sued in federal court unless the state has waived its immunity or Congress has removed it. The court concluded that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it through § 1983. The claims against New York State were dismissed.

Harassment claims

The court held that verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, and name-calling alone do not create a constitutional violation when the plaintiff does not allege an appreciable injury. Because Castillo alleged that the defendants called him names and did not allege that he suffered injuries, the court dismissed his harassment claims for failure to state a claim.

Religion-related claims

The court considered Castillo’s allegations about harassment during Ramadan under the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law protecting institutionalized people from substantial burdens on religious practice. The court concluded that Castillo did not allege facts showing that the defendants interfered with or substantially burdened his ability to practice his religion. He therefore failed to state a violation under either the First Amendment or that statute.

Disposition

The court dismissed Castillo’s complaint under the prisoner-screening statute and granted him 30 days’ leave to replead, meaning he could file an amended complaint addressing the identified defects. The court stated that it was doubtful the defects could be cured but concluded that amendment might not be futile. Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the clerk to mail Castillo a copy of the order and record service on the docket.