Kotler v. Boley

Background

Kerry Kotler brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government officials for constitutional violations. He proceeded without a lawyer. The defendants named in the opinion were C. Boley, a correction officer; J. Carreras, a sergeant; K. Chauvin, a senior counselor; and S. Reams, an inmate grievance program supervisor. Kotler alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments based on events at Fishkill Correctional Facility.

The motion addressed two matters: reconsideration of the court’s February 25, 2020 dismissal with prejudice of Kotler’s amended claims against Boley, Carreras, and Reams, and an extension of time to serve Chauvin. The court’s earlier orders had dismissed the claims against Boley, Carreras, and Reams without prejudice in 2018 and then dismissed the amended claims with prejudice in 2020. The 2020 order had dismissed the claims against Chauvin without prejudice because she had not been served.

Reconsideration request

The court denied reconsideration. It rejected Kotler’s argument that Boley and Carreras retaliated against him by searching his living quarters. The court reiterated that a prisoner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a prison cell and that a cell search does not implicate a constitutional right even when the prisoner alleges a retaliatory motive.

The court also concluded that Kotler’s other alleged adverse actions by Boley and Carreras did not state a plausible retaliation claim. The court had previously found that filing a grievance is protected conduct, but explained that the grievance’s contents mattered because it was difficult to show that one defendant retaliated against complaints directed at another defendant. Kotler did not allege that Boley or Carreras had any connection to the grievances involved in the events before the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee. The court therefore found his retaliation allegations conclusory and inconsistent with his allegation that the defendants made false statements to justify the search, rather than to retaliate.

The court also rejected Kotler’s due-process claim against Reams. It relied on its earlier conclusion that prisoners do not have a protected liberty interest in how prison grievances are processed.

Extension of time to serve Chauvin

Chauvin had not been served and was not represented in the action. The Marshals Service had made two unsuccessful efforts to serve her: the first summons was returned because she had retired from Fishkill, and later attempts at her last known address received no answer. Kotler requested an additional 90 days to complete service.

The court explained that district courts may grant additional time even without a showing of good cause. It found that Kotler had followed the required guidance by notifying the court and requesting an extension within the court-ordered deadline. It also found good cause because Kotler was incarcerated and the Marshals Service had been unable to complete service. The court was not prepared to conclude that service was impossible.

Disposition

The court denied the motion insofar as it requested reconsideration of the 2020 opinion and granted the motion insofar as it requested an extension of time to serve Chauvin. Kotler was required to serve Chauvin by February 9, 2021. The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to make another service attempt at Chauvin’s last known address and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion and mail the order to Kotler.