Kruppenbacher v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-00110
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
In Kruppenbacher v. Annucci, Judge Stanton dismissed claims against seven defendants but gave Joseph Kruppenbacher 60 days to amend four potential claims.
Joseph Kruppenbacher may file an amended complaint within 60 days addressing four possible claims. The court dismissed the claims against Anthony J. Annucci, Thomas R. Griffin, Laura A. Stanaway, Karen Bellamy, Adam M. Backaus, Wilfredo Lamboy, and John Doe Correction Officer #1.
What happened
In Joseph Kruppenbacher v. Anthony J. Annucci, Joseph Kruppenbacher, who was incarcerated and representing himself, alleged that prison officials interfered with medical decisions, family visitation, privacy, medical care, and his property. The events described occurred in 2016.
The court found that the complaint did not adequately connect several defendants to violations of Kruppenbacher’s rights. It dismissed the claims involving supervisors, grievance officials, two officers who allegedly lacked personal involvement, and the alleged destruction of property. It gave Kruppenbacher an opportunity to provide more facts about four possible claims involving medical refusal, privacy, family visitation, and medical care.
Judge Louis L. Stanton vacated an earlier order that had been incorrectly titled an order of dismissal, granted Kruppenbacher 60 days to file an amended complaint, and dismissed the action’s claims against Annucci, Griffin, Stanaway, Bellamy, Backaus, Lamboy, and John Doe #1 for failure to state a claim.
The detailed version
- Kruppenbacher v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-00110
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 3, 2021
Background
Joseph Kruppenbacher, an incarcerated person representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that events at Green Haven Correctional Facility in 2016 violated his rights. The defendants named in the complaint were Anthony J. Annucci, Laura A. Stanaway, Karen Bellamy, Thomas R. Griffin, Correction Officers Adam M. Backaus, Susan M. Hann, Wilfredo Lamboy, and John Doe Correction Officer #1.
Kruppenbacher alleged that Hann ordered him to go to the medical unit when he was supposed to attend a family visit. He said that medical staff then took his blood pressure, subjected him to additional examinations, and required him to undress while officers of the opposite gender were present. He alleged that Hann later wrote him up, Lamboy damaged property in his cell, and Backaus informed him that he had been placed in restricted housing, causing him to miss meals and recreation. Kruppenbacher stated that he was diabetic and that he had filed grievances, which were denied.
Kruppenbacher also alleged that prison officials prevented or delayed him from filing the action. The court had previously ordered him to explain why the action should not be dismissed as time-barred. After reviewing his declaration, the court concluded that the allegations could potentially support not dismissing the action on that ground at that stage.
Screening and dismissed claims
The court screened the complaint under statutes requiring review of prisoner complaints. It concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief against several defendants.
The court dismissed the claims against Annucci and Griffin because Kruppenbacher did not allege facts showing their personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. The court dismissed the claims against John Doe #1 and Backaus because the allegations showed only that they directed Kruppenbacher to attend visiting hours or informed him that someone else had placed him in restricted housing; the allegations did not show that either officer violated his rights.
The court dismissed Kruppenbacher’s claims against Bellamy and Stanaway concerning the handling of his grievances. It held that the Constitution does not give a prisoner a protected right to a particular grievance process or to have prison directives followed.
The court dismissed the property claim against Lamboy. It held that a federal due-process claim for property deprivation generally is unavailable when state law provides an adequate remedy. The court found that New York provided such a remedy and noted that Kruppenbacher had used the New York Court of Claims process but had lost there. The opinion did not add a prejudice designation to these dismissals.
Claims for which amendment was allowed
The court granted Kruppenbacher leave to file an amended complaint addressing four possible claims:
- Medical-refusal claim: The court recognized a constitutional liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment, but found that the allegations did not adequately explain the treatment, why Kruppenbacher refused it, or whether his refusal implicated that interest. The court stated that the allegation about refusing a blood-pressure check appeared connected to a desire not to delay his family visit rather than to a medical reason.
- Privacy claim: The court found that the allegation about being required to undress in front of female officers did not provide enough information to state a privacy claim, including whether the viewing was regular or close.
- Family-visit claim: The court treated the alleged denial of a family visit as a possible First Amendment freedom-of-association claim. It noted that the complaint alleged only a disagreement about the timing of medical treatment and the visit, and that Kruppenbacher eventually visited with his family. The court nevertheless allowed amendment because this claim appeared related to the other claims.
- Medical-care claim: The court treated the missed meal as a possible claim for inadequate medical care. It found that alleging one missed meal and diabetes was not enough to show that the unnamed officer knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm, but allowed Kruppenbacher to provide additional facts.
Amendment instructions and disposition
The court gave Kruppenbacher 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to identify the people allegedly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, explain the injuries and rights involved, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court warned that failure to comply within the allowed time, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Because the earlier order had been incorrectly titled an “Order of Dismissal,” the court vacated that order and directed the Clerk of Court to docket the corrected order as an “Order to Amend.” The court granted leave to amend and dismissed from the action Annucci, Griffin, Stanaway, Bellamy, Backaus, Lamboy, and John Doe #1 for failure to state a claim. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.