Rivera v. Annucci

Background

Albert Rivera, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Superintendent Mark Royce, Deputy Superintendent Anthony Russo, Captain Norton, Correction Officer Tracy Ott, and Correction Officer Jhandry Zevallos under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rivera alleged that another inmate attacked him in Green Haven Correctional Facility’s recreation yard on October 11, 2019, and that Ott and Zevallos failed to protect him during a second attack. He also alleged that Captain Norton improperly placed him in involuntary protective custody for approximately 142 days, from October 21, 2019, until March 11, 2020.

Rivera asserted Eighth Amendment claims concerning failure to protect and the conditions of his protective custody placement, a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim, and claims under the New York State Constitution. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Rule 12(b)(1) Rulings

The court dismissed Rivera’s New York State-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. New York Correction Law § 24 bars federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over state-law claims for damages against covered state correctional employees when the alleged conduct was within the scope of their employment. Rivera did not allege that the defendants acted outside that scope.

The court also dismissed Rivera’s § 1983 claims against the defendants in their official capacities under Rule 12(b)(1). The Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits against a state in federal court, and the court found that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it for these claims. The court stated that this ruling did not affect the claims against the defendants in their individual capacities.

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires incarcerated people to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing claims about prison conditions. Rivera stated in his signed second amended complaint that he had filed no grievances because he believed his claims could not be grieved. The court held that his Eighth Amendment claims—failure to protect and protective-custody placement—were grievable and that the complaint itself showed he had not exhausted the required process.

The court also relied on the timing. The attack occurred on October 11, 2019, and Rivera signed his initial complaint on October 27, 2019, leaving too little time to complete the prison’s grievance process. The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It did not dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim on that ground because the court could not determine from the complaint whether Rivera had exhausted the separate appeal process for the disciplinary or placement-related proceedings.

Failure to State a Claim

The court separately held that all of Rivera’s constitutional claims failed under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally actionable claim.

For the failure-to-protect claim, the court explained that Rivera needed to allege both a substantial risk of serious harm and that the officers knowingly disregarded that risk. The court concluded that the attacks were surprise attacks. It reasoned that the initial attack was unexpected, the inmates were separated, and the second attack occurred when the assailant revealed a weapon and charged Rivera. The court held that the allegations did not show deliberate indifference by Ott or Zevallos. It also stated that officers were not required to put their own safety at risk by intervening in the fight.

For the Eighth Amendment claim concerning protective custody, the court held that placement in involuntary protective custody alone did not violate the Constitution. Rivera did not allege facts describing conditions that endangered his health or safety or otherwise imposed an unusually severe hardship.

For the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim, the court held that Rivera had not adequately alleged a protected liberty interest. Although the placement lasted approximately 142 days, duration alone was insufficient for a placement in the intermediate range. Rivera did not describe the conditions of his confinement well enough to show an unusually severe and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life.

The court dismissed the claims against Royce and Russo because supervisory liability requires an underlying constitutional violation. Since Rivera had not adequately pleaded an underlying constitutional violation, the court dismissed those claims without deciding whether he sufficiently alleged Royce’s or Russo’s personal involvement.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice because the court concluded that amendment would be futile, directed the clerk to close the case, and did not address the defendants’ qualified-immunity arguments or Rivera’s request to submit additional supporting materials.