Herbert v. Ginty

Background

Jeremiah F. Herbert, who was incarcerated at the Sullivan Correctional Jail and represented himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government officials for constitutional violations. The court had already granted him permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The second amended complaint named Warden Harold L. Smith, Cpl. Calangelo, Capt. James E. Ginty, Deputy R. Ruggiero, Lt. Chris Bini, Cpl. Matis, and Frank LaBuda, Esq., a former judge.

Herbert alleged that, during his detention at the Sullivan County Jail, he was denied Muslim services, Halal meals, and an Imam; physically and verbally mistreated because of his faith; denied access to the law library, postage, and paper; denied adequate protection from COVID-19; given limited access to showers, recreation, and other programs; and exposed to mold, mildew, insects, and sewage. He also sought immediate court-ordered relief concerning religious services, legal materials, and the alleged violence.

Screening of the Complaint

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief from government entities or their officers. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims Against Frank LaBuda

The court held that judges generally have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. Because Herbert’s claims against LaBuda appeared to arise from LaBuda’s role in presiding over Herbert’s criminal proceedings, the court found that the actions were within LaBuda’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed Herbert’s claims against Frank LaBuda, Esq. on immunity grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

Access-to-Court Claim

The court denied Herbert’s claim concerning access to the law library, legal materials, postage, and paper for failure to state a claim. Herbert did not allege facts showing actual injury, such as dismissal of an otherwise meritorious legal claim. He also did not allege facts showing regular and unjustified interference with his mail. The order states that the access-to-court claim is denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Conditions of Confinement

The court interpreted Herbert’s allegations about COVID-19 protection, showers, recreation, services, mold, mildew, insects, and sewage as a claim that officials were deliberately indifferent to dangerous confinement conditions. Because it appeared Herbert was a pretrial detainee, the court applied the Fourteenth Amendment standard. That standard requires facts showing both that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of the excessive risk.

The court found that Herbert had not stated a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim because his allegations were vague. In particular, he did not provide specific facts showing how the conditions threatened his health or safety, how long he was exposed to them, or that officials acted with the required state of mind. The court did not state that these claims were dismissed in the conclusion. Instead, it gave Herbert 30 days to file a third amended complaint with sufficient facts if he wished to pursue them.

Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief

Herbert submitted a proposed order seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. A preliminary injunction is an exceptional court order issued before final judgment. The court stated that Herbert had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions supporting the case, along with a favorable balance of hardships.

The court found that Herbert had not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief. It therefore denied the motion without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.

Service and Further Proceedings

Because Herbert had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms and summonses for Warden Harold Smith, Cpl. Calangelo, Capt. James Ginty, Deputy R. Ruggiero, Lt. Christopher Bini, and Cpl. Matis, and to provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued.

The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days of the order. The court directed the defendants to serve those responses.

Conclusion

The order dismissed Herbert’s claims against Frank LaBuda, Esq. on immunity grounds and denied the access-to-court claim for failure to state a claim. It denied the request for immediate injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal, allowed Herbert an opportunity to amend the conditions-of-confinement allegations, and directed service on six other defendants. The order states that the case was proceeding at that stage solely on Herbert’s claims that his religious practices were infringed and that he was subjected to abuse because of his religion. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal from the order.