Mercado v. Town of Goshen

Background

Matthew L. Mercado, who was incarcerated at the Orange County Correctional Facility and was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued the Town of Goshen, the Orange County Correctional Facility, the facility’s administration and mail operation, and the facility’s Chief Administrative Officer. In his amended complaint, he also named Chief Administrative Officer Captain Cutletti, Sgt. Kiszka, Officer T. Rodrigues, Sgt. Mann, and John Doe.

Mercado alleged that on June 30, 2020, an unknown facility employee opened confidential legal mail outside his presence. The envelope had been sent from the Ninth Judicial District Court in White Plains, New York. Mercado filed a grievance, and the response stated that no staff member acknowledged opening the envelope and that there was no indication its contents had been read. Mercado also alleged that his mail had been delayed or sent late, that other letters had been tampered with, and that some letters to Santana Law Firm were never received. He sought money damages and his “freedom back.”

Screening and prior amendment

Because Mercado sought to proceed without paying the filing fee and was suing governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The screening rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read Mercado’s self-represented pleadings liberally, but the pleadings still had to include enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

In an August 12, 2020 order, the court construed the original complaint as raising claims that the defendants interfered with access to the courts and tampered with mail in violation of the First Amendment. The court identified several deficiencies, including the lack of an alleged injury to an ongoing legal matter, the failure to state a claim against the Town of Goshen, the facility’s status as an improper defendant, and the lack of facts showing how an individual defendant was personally involved. The court allowed Mercado to amend.

Court’s reasoning

The court dismissed the amended complaint for the reasons stated in its earlier order. It held that Mercado alleged no actual injury, such as the dismissal of an otherwise meritorious legal claim. It also found insufficient facts showing regular and unjustifiable interference with his mail that affected his ability to correspond with people outside the facility. The court noted that an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.

The court further stated that Mercado alleged no injury beyond the opening and reading of a piece of legal mail outside his presence. Although that conduct might have violated facility practice, the court explained that prisoners do not have a constitutional privacy interest in legal materials and that mishandling or reading legal mail, without additional injury, does not establish a viable § 1983 claim. The amended complaint therefore failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed Mercado’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(11), as cited in the opinion. The court declined to grant another opportunity to amend because Mercado had already amended once and the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The clerk was directed to mail Mercado a copy of the order and note service on the docket.