Kruppenbacher v. Annucci

Background

Joseph Kruppenbacher brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that officials violated his constitutional rights in 2016 while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. He alleged that a correction officer directed him to medical treatment when he was supposed to attend a family visit; that he was examined and required to undress while officers of the opposite gender were present; that his property was destroyed; and that he was placed in restricted housing, causing him to miss meals and recreation despite having diabetes. He said he filed grievances, but they were denied.

The court also reviewed Kruppenbacher’s explanation that, from September 2018 through December 2019, officials had obstructed or hindered his efforts to complete and file his complaint. The court declined at that stage to dismiss the action as time-barred because his allegations arguably supported a reason not to apply the time limit.

Claims dismissed

The court dismissed claims against Anthony Annucci and Thomas R. Griffin because Kruppenbacher did not allege their personal involvement in the claimed constitutional violations. The court explained that a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because someone the supervisor oversees allegedly violated a person’s rights.

The court dismissed claims against John Doe Correction Officer #1 and Adam M. Backaus because the allegations showed only that they were present, directed Kruppenbacher to attend visiting hours, or told him that someone else had placed him in restricted housing. The court concluded that those facts did not show that either person violated Kruppenbacher’s rights.

The court dismissed the claims against Karen Bellamy and Laura A. Stanaway concerning their handling of Kruppenbacher’s grievances. It concluded that the Constitution does not give a prisoner a protected right to file a grievance or receive a particular grievance process merely because prison officials may have failed to follow a prison directive.

The court dismissed the property claim against Wilfredo Lamboy. It held that a federal due-process claim for destroyed property generally cannot proceed when state law provides an adequate remedy. The court stated that New York provided such a remedy and that Kruppenbacher had used the New York Court of Claims process.

Claims that could be amended

The court allowed Kruppenbacher to amend four claims. First, it allowed him to provide additional facts about whether Defendant Hann violated his constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. The court said that his allegations about refusing a blood-pressure check appeared to involve a delay in his family visit rather than a medical reason, and that his description of the other examination was too unclear.

Second, the court allowed him to provide more facts for a privacy claim based on being required to undress while female officers were present. The court noted that occasional, indirect, or brief viewing of a naked prisoner by an opposite-sex guard may be permissible, while regular and close viewing generally is not, and found the allegations insufficiently detailed.

Third, the court allowed him to amend the family-visit claim. The court treated that allegation as a possible First Amendment freedom-of-association claim but noted that the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit had not clearly established an unrestricted constitutional right to family visits in prison. The court also noted that Kruppenbacher eventually attended the visit.

Fourth, the court allowed him to amend the medical-care claim concerning the missed meal. The court explained that an inadequate-medical-care claim requires facts showing both a serious medical risk and that officials knew of and disregarded that risk. It found that alleging one missed meal and diabetes, without facts showing that the responsible officer knew of a substantial risk of harm, was insufficient at that stage.

Orders and next steps

The February 3, 2021 order vacated an earlier order of dismissal because the earlier order had been incorrectly titled an “Order of Dismissal,” and Kruppenbacher may have refused it because of that title. The court directed the Clerk of Court to docket the corrected order and gave Kruppenbacher 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and identify each defendant, the relevant facts, dates, places, injuries, and requested relief.

The April 14, 2021 order granted Kruppenbacher’s request for additional time and gave him 30 days from that order to submit the amended complaint. It stated that the amended complaint did not need legal citations and could rely on the order’s instructions. The April order directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and a new complaint form to Kruppenbacher.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against Annucci, Griffin, Stanaway, Bellamy, Backaus, Lamboy, and John Doe #1 for failure to state a claim. It granted Kruppenbacher leave to amend the four specified claims. The court stated that if he failed to file a compliant amended complaint on time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.