Warren v. Quick

Background

Vincent Warren, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, sued Quandera T. Quick, Shelley Mallozzi, and Rebecca A. Loren under Sections 1981, 1983, and 1985. He alleged violations of his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Warren alleged that he worked as a clerk for the Inmate Grievance Program at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. He claimed that Quick refused to place his name on the ballot for an inmate representative position. After he filed a grievance about the voting process on January 25, 2018, Warren alleged that Quick removed him from his clerk position and demoted him to porter in retaliation. He later filed another grievance alleging retaliation. The superintendent denied that grievance, and the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s Central Office Review Committee upheld the denial.

Warren alleged that he told Mallozzi, the grievance-program director, and Loren, the grievance-program coordinator, about Quick’s alleged retaliation. He claimed they failed to remedy the problem and allowed Quick to continue violating rules. He also alleged, based on information and belief, that Mallozzi was complicit with Quick in a supposed quid pro quo.

Mallozzi and Loren moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a legal claim plausible. Quick did not join the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on whether Warren plausibly alleged that Mallozzi and Loren were personally involved in a constitutional violation. For a damages claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that each government official violated the Constitution through that official’s own actions. A supervisor’s mere knowledge of alleged misconduct, or mere receipt of a grievance without personally investigating or acting on it, is generally insufficient.

The court found Warren’s allegation that he had conveyed the facts to Mallozzi and Loren and that they failed to remedy the violations too vague to show personal involvement. The complaint did not allege facts showing that either defendant directly participated in the retaliation, investigated it, conducted a hearing, or denied the related grievance. Although Mallozzi was copied on two grievances, the court held that this alone did not establish personal involvement.

The court also rejected Warren’s allegations that Mallozzi and Loren allowed Quick to operate the grievance program as she pleased despite receiving complaints. It explained that violations of prison grievance procedures created by state law do not, by themselves, establish a constitutional claim under Section 1983. The court likewise found the allegation that Mallozzi was complicit with Quick through a quid pro quo conclusory and unsupported by facts showing personal involvement in unconstitutional conduct. Warren also did not allege that the supposed quid pro quo itself was retaliatory.

Ruling and Effect

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed Warren’s claims against Mallozzi and Loren and directed the clerk to terminate them as defendants. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Quick did not move to dismiss. The court ordered her to answer the complaint by January 13, 2021. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Warren the ability to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.