Haywood v. Annucci

Background

Tyrone Haywood, representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing suits for constitutional violations by state officials. He sued Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, Sgt. Michael Blot, Jr., Richard Flanagan, Eric Ferguson, and Sgt. Robert A. Wahlquist over events at Green Haven Correctional Facility on August 1, 2018. The motion addressed only Annucci and Blot.

Haywood alleged that, during a facility lockdown and cell search, he was required to move in slippers and underwear in front of female officers. He alleged that Blot ordered him removed from his cell, after which officers pushed him down stairs. He further alleged that Flanagan conducted an invasive body search, grabbed his penis, and repeatedly punched him, while Wahlquist prevented an Office of Special Investigations official from intervening. Haywood also alleged that Blot falsely claimed to have found a weapon, caused him to be confined in the “box,” restricted his water and bedding, denied him medical care, and directed the destruction of his property and legal papers.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Haywood’s favor. Because Haywood was representing himself, the court read his filings liberally and considered consistent allegations in his earlier filings and opposition papers.

Claims against Annucci

The court dismissed Haywood’s claims against Annucci. Haywood did not mention Annucci in the body of his complaints, although he alleged in a pre-motion letter that Blot said Annucci had given subordinate officers broad freedom in dealing with inmates. The court held that this general allegation did not plausibly show Annucci’s personal involvement in the alleged assault. Haywood did not allege that Annucci was present, knew about the assault, had reason to know about it, established a policy of assaults, or had specific knowledge of similar prior assaults.

The court also held that Haywood failed to state a privacy claim based on the alleged policy requiring inmates to walk across the tier in their underwear during cell searches. The court reasoned that inmates were allowed to wear underwear, the facility was locked down because of a serious security concern, and the alleged policy was reasonably related to prison security on the facts pleaded.

Claims against Blot

The court allowed Haywood’s excessive-force claims against Blot to proceed. Haywood alleged that Blot told him, “you don’t make the rules, I do,” directed Ferguson and Flanagan to take him away, and whispered to Wahlquist immediately before the alleged assaults. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly suggested that Blot ordered or directly participated in the assaults, even though Blot was not alleged to have personally used force.

The court dismissed Haywood’s due-process claim based on the alleged false accusation and resulting confinement. Haywood did not allege how long he was confined, and he alleged that the loss of water, mattress, and pillow lasted only a few days. The court held that these allegations did not plausibly show the kind of unusually severe hardship that would create a protected liberty interest.

The court also dismissed Haywood’s due-process claim based on destruction of his property. It held that the alleged destruction appeared to be an unauthorized act by a state employee, for which New York provided an adequate state-law remedy after the deprivation. The court therefore concluded that the property loss did not support a federal due-process claim under § 1983. In a footnote, the court also stated that an access-to-courts claim based on destruction of legal papers could not withstand the motion because Haywood did not allege that the destruction hindered a particular legal matter.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims against Annucci and the due-process claims against Blot concerning the alleged false accusations and property destruction. The court allowed the excessive-force claims against Blot to proceed. The dismissals were without prejudice because this was the first adjudication on the merits of those claims. Haywood was given 30 days to file a second amended complaint containing all claims, facts, and exhibits he wanted the court to consider. The court warned that failure to meet the deadline could result in dismissal with prejudice.