Harden v. Doe

Background

Paul Harden, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lorie Badger and Sergeant ("Sgt.") Sahad. He alleged violations of the First and Eighth Amendments. The pending motion was defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The opinion describes allegations that Green Haven Correctional Facility staff broadcast abusive statements about Harden, accused him of being a whistleblower, removed him from a work assignment, withheld his mail, planned or attempted to arrange his murder with weapons, put a foreign substance in his food, delayed medical care after he became ill, and created or circulated threatening and pornographic videos about him.

Eighth Amendment claims

The court treated the complaint as asserting deliberate-indifference claims concerning both conditions of confinement and medical needs. For the conditions claim, the court held that Harden did not plausibly allege the required personal involvement of any Green Haven staff member, including Badger or Sgt. Sahad, in the alleged voyeurism, threats, broadcasts, or videos. The court therefore dismissed that claim.

For the medical-needs claim, Harden alleged that he experienced stomach pain, vomiting, and blood in his spit and did not receive medical care for three days. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that these allegations might satisfy the objective seriousness requirement. It nevertheless held that Harden did not allege that either Badger or Sgt. Sahad was personally involved in his medical care or in the alleged delay. The court dismissed the medical-needs claim.

First Amendment retaliation

The court held that Harden failed to plausibly state a retaliation claim. It identified three documents in the complaint as protected speech: a December 16, 2016, letter to Governor Cuomo; a July 20, 2017, grievance complaint; and a July 24, 2017, letter to the Inmate Grievance Program. The court found that Harden’s removal from his work assignment occurred before the earliest of those identified acts and that he did not allege earlier protected complaints about staff misconduct or harassment. It also found that he did not plausibly allege personal involvement by Badger or Sgt. Sahad in the decision to remove him. The court dismissed the retaliation claim.

Interference with mail

The court held that Harden failed to state a First Amendment mail-interference claim. As to Badger, the complaint contained no factual allegations showing personal involvement. As to Sgt. Sahad, Harden alleged only that he did not receive mail from his family for two months and that Sgt. Sahad was caught going through the mail with his mail in her possession. The court found that these allegations did not identify a specific action by Sgt. Sahad to withhold or tamper with the mail and were conclusory. The court dismissed the mail claim.

Conspiracy

The court held that Harden failed to state a claim for conspiracy under § 1983. Although he alleged that weapons were brought into the facility to facilitate an attack, he did not allege facts showing a meeting of the minds or identify anyone with whom Sgt. Sahad allegedly conspired. The court also noted that Harden described Badger’s alleged poisoning of his food as revenge, rather than as part of an agreement to murder him. The court dismissed the conspiracy claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court had previously given Harden an opportunity to amend and had identified pleading deficiencies he needed to address. It concluded that he had not corrected those deficiencies or suggested that he possessed facts that would do so. The court found the problems with his claims substantive and concluded that better pleading would not cure them. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend a second time.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, instructed the Clerk to close the case, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It denied Harden permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The opinion also states that, although a John Doe correction officer appeared in the second amended complaint’s caption, Harden did not mention that person in the complaint’s body or assert claims against that person.