Washington v. Fitzpatrick

Background

Charles E. Washington, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued Correction Officers T. Fitzpatrick and Sain Clair, Sergeant Sheridan, Lieutenant Jordan, and Colonel Sipple under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments based on events at Sullivan Correctional Facility.

Washington alleged that Sain Clair improperly touched his genitals during a pat frisk on September 13, 2019. He also alleged that Fitzpatrick urged Sain Clair to write a disciplinary report against him. Sain Clair then filed a report charging Washington with several prison-rule violations. Washington claimed the report was false, that video evidence was not produced at his disciplinary hearing, and that Jordan found him guilty of four charges. Sipple affirmed that decision. Washington alleged that he spent 30 days in keeplock and lost various privileges, his position as chief musician, and good-time credit.

Washington also alleged that prison officials failed to protect him from threats by other inmates, retaliated against him for complaining, conspired to file a false report and conceal evidence, failed to process or investigate his grievance, and violated his procedural due-process rights during the disciplinary proceeding.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The court considered whether the complaint pleaded enough factual matter to make each claim plausible. It accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and interpreted Washington’s filings liberally because he was representing himself, but it did not accept legal conclusions without supporting facts or add facts that Washington had not alleged.

Claims against Sergeant Sheridan

The court dismissed the claims against Sheridan because the complaint did not allege that Sheridan was personally involved in the alleged sexual abuse, failure to protect, retaliation, or procedural due-process violations. The only allegations concerning Sheridan were that he questioned Washington after the pat frisk and escorted him to keeplock.

Sexual-abuse claim

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment sexual-abuse claim against Sain Clair. It held that Washington did not plausibly allege that the single incident was sufficiently severe, particularly because he alleged that he suffered no physical injury and did not provide facts showing that the pat frisk was unrelated to legitimate prison duties. The court also found that the alleged comments and facial expressions did not sufficiently show that Sain Clair acted to humiliate Washington, obtain sexual gratification, or pursue another improper purpose.

Failure-to-protect claim

The court dismissed the failure-to-protect claim. Although Washington alleged that other inmates threatened and harassed him after the disciplinary charge, he did not allege a later attempted or actual attack. He also did not allege that he told a prison official about a specific fear of assault or that he had been assaulted. The court therefore found that he had not plausibly alleged either a serious risk of harm or that a defendant knowingly disregarded such a risk.

First Amendment retaliation claim

The court dismissed Washington’s retaliation claim against Sain Clair and Fitzpatrick. It accepted that the disciplinary report could qualify as adverse action, but found that Washington had not provided sufficiently specific facts showing that he engaged in protected speech or conduct or that his complaints caused the report.

The court found that Washington’s description of his statements during the pat frisk suggested only a verbal confrontation and did not explain what he specifically said. His allegations about complaining to the superintendent and administrative deputy likewise did not identify what he said. As to his attempted grievance, Washington did not state when he tried to file it, so the allegations did not support an inference that the grievance attempt caused the earlier disciplinary report.

Procedural due-process claim

The court dismissed Washington’s procedural due-process claims. It first found that 30 days in keeplock with the alleged loss of privileges did not plausibly establish an atypical and significant hardship. Washington’s allegation about good-time credit was too vague to show whether previously awarded credit had been taken away or whether he merely lost an opportunity to earn credit. The court also found that clemency procedures did not create a protected liberty interest.

Even assuming Washington had a protected liberty interest in good-time credit, the court found no plausible due-process violation. Washington did not allege that he asked Jordan to call Pomeroy as a witness or that Jordan refused such a request. The allegations about the missing video did not support an inference that Jordan destroyed it rather than learned that it did not exist, and Washington did not plausibly allege that the absence of the video affected the hearing’s outcome. The court noted that witnesses testified for Washington, he was found not guilty of the lewd-conduct charge, and his own allegations indicated that at least some evidence supported the guilty findings. The court also held that Sipple’s affirmance alone did not establish personal involvement in a constitutional violation.

Conspiracy, grievance, and investigation claims

The court dismissed the conspiracy claim because Washington did not plausibly allege an underlying constitutional violation or facts showing an agreement and coordinated action among the defendants. It dismissed the grievance-procedure claim because the Constitution does not require a particular prison grievance system, and failure to process or investigate a grievance does not itself create a § 1983 claim. It also dismissed the failure-to-investigate claim because failure to investigate alleged unconstitutional conduct is not, by itself, a § 1983 violation.

Disposition and leave to amend

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court granted Washington leave to file an amended complaint asserting potential First Amendment retaliation claims against Sain Clair and Fitzpatrick, a potential procedural due-process claim against Jordan, and a potential conspiracy claim against Sain Clair, Fitzpatrick, and Jordan. The court instructed Washington to provide a clear chronology, identify each defendant’s acts or omissions, describe the protected activity supporting retaliation, explain any liberty interest and good-time-credit loss, provide dates or approximate dates, and describe his injuries.

The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, opposition, and sur-reply. The court directed the Clerk to terminate Sheridan as a defendant. Washington had until May 17, 2021, to amend or request additional time; otherwise, the court would deem the case abandoned and direct entry of judgment for the defendants. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.