Genao v. City Of New York

Background

Gabino Genao, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and employees of the New York City Department of Correction. He alleged two incidents while he was incarcerated at the North Infirmary Command at Rikers Island. In the first, he alleged that legal mail he gave to Melissa Rodriguez on December 27, 2018, was not sent for more than a month, delaying an appeal. In the second, he alleged that receipts connected to inmate withdrawal-fund slips he submitted to Kathleen Sands between January 18 and January 22, 2019, were misdated, tampered with, and signed differently from the forms he submitted.

Genao alleged violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and sought $100,000 in cash compensation and punitive damages. He also asserted a claim under the federal mail-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Genao did not oppose the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Genao was not required to plead that he had exhausted prison grievance procedures. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, exhaustion is required before bringing certain prisoner suits, but failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense rather than a pleading requirement. The court also held that the physical-injury limitation did not bar the lawsuit at this stage because Genao sought punitive damages and other relief, not only compensation for mental or emotional injury.

The court nevertheless concluded that the complaint did not state a claim for denial of access to the courts. It alleged only two instances of mail interference, did not adequately allege an ongoing practice or actual prejudice to a legal action, and did not identify the underlying legal claims or an otherwise unavailable remedy. The court also concluded that the complaint did not state a First Amendment mail-interference claim because Genao did not adequately allege that the interference was regular and unjustified or part of an ongoing censorship practice.

The court rejected the claim against the City because Genao did not adequately allege an underlying constitutional violation or an unconstitutional City policy or custom. It rejected the claims against Sharlisa Walker and Sonya Freeman because the complaint did not allege their personal involvement; liability could not be based only on their supervisory positions. Finally, the court ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 1341 does not create a private right to sue for mail fraud and dismissed that claim.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It gave Genao 60 days, until July 25, 2021, to file an amended complaint with allegations supporting his constitutional claims. The order stated that the court would terminate the case if he did not file a timely amended complaint. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.

Uncertainty note

The opinion refers once to an “Amended Complaint” even though the rest of the decision refers to the Complaint. The caption identifies Correction Officer Knepple, while the background refers to David Knepple; this summary avoids relying on that inconsistent first-name reference.