Gunn v. Doe

Background

Darrell Gunn, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Correction Officers Patrick Leon McNeil, Peterson, Keith Sposato, Wesley, and Anthony Wells, along with the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court construed his allegations as asserting violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Gunn alleged that prison officials denied him writing materials, limited or denied his law-library access, removed him from library call-outs, withheld pain medication, retaliated against him for filing a grievance, and caused him to miss court deadlines. The events allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The court treated his original and amended complaints together as the operative complaint and also considered allegations and exhibits submitted in opposition to dismissal.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but concluded that legal conclusions and unsupported statements were insufficient. Because Gunn represented himself, the court read his filings liberally, while still requiring factual allegations that plausibly supported relief.

Exhaustion of Prison Grievances

The defendants argued that Gunn had not alleged complete exhaustion of the prison grievance process for his claim against Wells. The court rejected that argument at this stage. Exhaustion is an affirmative defense rather than a pleading requirement, and Gunn alleged that he had filed and appealed multiple grievances. The court therefore did not dismiss the claim against Wells for failure to exhaust and did not dismiss the entire complaint on that basis.

Statute of Limitations

The court held that claims based on events before December 16, 2016, were untimely under the three-year limitations period applicable to these § 1983 claims. The time-barred allegations included the denial of writing paper, an envelope, and a pen; McNeil’s August 29, 2016 denial of extended law-library access; and McNeil’s September 29, 2016 removal of Gunn from a library call-out.

The court rejected Gunn’s equitable-tolling argument. It found that he had not identified extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing, had not connected particular grievances to the writing-materials or McNeil claims, and had not stated when grievance appeals ended. The court therefore dismissed the claims against McNeil and the claim concerning writing materials. The court also noted that Gunn had not identified which defendant withheld the writing materials.

Access to the Courts

The court dismissed Gunn’s access-to-the-courts claims. To state such a claim, he needed to plausibly allege that a defendant deliberately hindered a nonfrivolous legal claim and caused an actual injury. Gunn alleged that McNeil, Sposato, Peterson, Wesley, and Wells denied or restricted his law-library access and that Sposato and Wells caused him to miss court deadlines. The court found these allegations too vague and conclusory because Gunn did not identify the specific legal matters, deadlines, or documents affected.

The court also dismissed claims concerning removal from Friday library call-outs because Gunn did not identify who removed him, how much access he lost, or what legal proceedings he could not pursue. To the extent Gunn asserted these claims against DOCCS, the court held that the claims were barred by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Medical-Care Claim

The court dismissed Gunn’s claim that Wesley was deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. Gunn alleged that Wesley withheld pain medication for unspecified pre-existing medical conditions and that he suffered a panic attack. The court found that Gunn had not identified the medical conditions or otherwise pleaded facts showing that the alleged inadequacy of care was sufficiently serious to support an Eighth Amendment claim.

Retaliation Claim

The court dismissed Gunn’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Sposato. Gunn alleged that Sposato retaliated against him for filing an April 17, 2015 grievance by removing him from the law library, examining his court documents, questioning whether they were legitimate, and removing him from library call-outs. The court found no factual allegations showing that the grievance motivated Sposato’s conduct. Because Gunn did not provide dates for Sposato’s actions, the court also could not infer a connection based on timing.

Harassment, Injunctive Relief, and State Claims

The court held that Gunn’s allegations that Wesley targeted him and gave him a hard time were insufficient to state a constitutional harassment claim. The court found Gunn’s request for injunctive relief moot because he was no longer incarcerated at Green Haven. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that could be read into the complaint.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It granted Gunn leave to file a second amended complaint concerning access to the courts against McNeil, Sposato, Peterson, Wesley, and Wells; deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Wesley; and retaliation against Sposato. The court instructed Gunn to provide specific facts, dates, defendants, missed deadlines, legal proceedings, injuries, and grievance-process information. The second amended complaint was to replace the earlier pleadings and opposition papers. Gunn was required to file it, or request additional time, by February 8, 2021; otherwise, the court stated that it would deem the case abandoned and direct entry of judgment for the defendants. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.