Gentile v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-03405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Gentile v. Annucci, Judge Briccetti denied preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice and ordered service of the complaint on the defendants.
Joseph J. Gentile and the five named defendants: Anthony J. Annucci, Edward Burnett, John Wood, Luis Gonzalez, and L.M.S.W. Feuz. The order also directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the complaint.
What happened
In Gentile v. Annucci, Joseph J. Gentile, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued prison officials under a federal civil-rights law, alleging violations of his religious freedom. The court also understood the complaint to raise claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Gentile asked the court to stop the defendants from rescinding his parole and from harassing or retaliating against him. The court found that he had not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm, meaning harm that could not be adequately repaired later, and denied preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal later. The court also said that any request for release from prison had to be brought in a new federal petition after available state remedies were exhausted.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and have the U.S. Marshals Service serve the five defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses were issued and required Gentile to notify the court of any address change.
The detailed version
- Gentile v. Annucci · No. 7:21-cv-03405
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 28, 2021
Background
Joseph J. Gentile, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, Superintendent Edward Burnett, Deputy Superintendent of Programs John Wood, Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Programs Luis Gonzalez, and L.M.S.W. Feuz violated his First Amendment right to religious freedom. The court construed the complaint as also asserting claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Gentile had already been granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief
In a May 6, 2021 letter, Gentile stated that his scheduled parole release had been rescinded without procedural or substantive due process in retaliation for filing this action. He asked the court to prevent the defendants from rescinding his parole and to stop other alleged harassment or retaliation while the case was pending. The court treated the letter as a request for a preliminary injunction, which is an extraordinary order issued before a final decision on the case.
The court stated that Gentile had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him. The court found that, at that stage, he had not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm without the requested injunction. It therefore denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.
May 26 Letter and Request for Release
The court received another letter from Gentile on May 26, 2021. That letter alleged that he was being illegally held in retaliation for filing the action and attached an order to show cause and a state-court petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The court ruled that the May 26 letter was not part of the complaint.
The court stated that a request for release from prison must be made through a new federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after all available state remedies have been exhausted. The order did not decide the merits of such a petition.
Service of the Complaint
Because Gentile had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on Annucci, Burnett, Wood, Gonzalez, and Feuz. The court extended the time for service to 90 days after the summonses were issued. It also stated that Gentile had to notify the court in writing if his address changed and that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Gentile’s request for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. The court also directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out service of the complaint on the defendants. The order did not decide whether Gentile’s religious-freedom claims ultimately had merit.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.