Jackson v. Annucci

Background

Lavogia Jackson, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee, sued Anthony J. Annucci, Donald Venettozzi, Michael Royce, Eric Gutwein, Derek Deegan, Rosita Rossy, William Rivera, and Raymond Dahl under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officials violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. His amended complaint asserted claims involving alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, deliberate indifference to medical needs, conditions of confinement, procedural due process, and retaliation and conspiracy under the First Amendment. He also appeared to assert claims based on violations of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directives and regulations.

Jackson alleged that Rossy ordered the confiscation of his back and knee braces after his medical permit expired by one day. He later discovered that the braces were missing. Jackson also alleged that he was randomly selected for a urine test, that the test used the Indiko Plus system, and that the result was positive for an unidentified substance. He was placed in keeplock confinement and charged with violating a prison drug rule.

Before his disciplinary hearing, Jackson requested several documents, including freezer-access records, testing proficiency reports, and Dahl’s certification for the testing system. He received some requested materials but not all of them. At the hearing, he objected to the missing materials, the handling of the hearing, and the time available to review documents. The hearing was later continued, and Gutwein found him guilty. The sanctions included 60 days of keeplock confinement, 90-day losses of several privileges, and confiscation of personal property. Venettozzi first affirmed and later reversed the guilty determination.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a claim for relief. Jackson also sought default judgment in his opposition papers. The court denied that request because it was procedurally improper: defendants had moved to dismiss rather than failed to respond, and a default-judgment request had to be filed separately.

Analysis

Claims against Annucci, Royce, and Venettozzi. A claim under Section 1983 requires a constitutional or federal-law violation by a person acting under state law. It also requires facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement. The court held that Jackson’s allegations against Annucci were based mainly on Annucci’s position as Acting Commissioner and did not connect Annucci’s actions concerning other positive test results to Jackson’s own test. The court held that Royce’s alleged notice of Jackson’s confinement was not enough to show personal involvement. The court dismissed all claims against Annucci and Royce.

As to Venettozzi, the court did not decide whether reviewing and initially affirming Jackson’s disciplinary result established personal involvement. Instead, it held that qualified immunity applied because courts in the circuit disagreed about whether an official who denies an administrative appeal can be liable for procedural violations at the underlying hearing. The court dismissed all claims against Venettozzi.

Medical-needs claim. Jackson alleged that Rossy violated the Eighth Amendment by confiscating his back and knee braces. The court explained that this type of claim requires allegations showing both a sufficiently serious medical deprivation and that the official knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court held that Jackson did not describe the medical conditions requiring the braces or allege that he suffered discomfort or an urgent medical harm after their confiscation. It also held that his allegations showed Rossy acted because the permit had expired, not because she intended to cause pain or knew of a substantial risk of serious harm. The court dismissed this claim against Rossy.

Conditions-of-confinement claim. Jackson alleged that Gutwein violated the Eighth Amendment by ordering the removal of personal belongings after the disciplinary finding. The court held that the temporary loss of the listed personal items did not plausibly create an unreasonable risk of serious harm to health or safety. It also held that ordinary disciplinary sanctions did not show that Gutwein knowingly disregarded such a risk. The court dismissed this claim against Gutwein. The court also dismissed the same claim as to Deegan, Dahl, and Royce because Jackson did not allege their personal involvement in the conditions-of-confinement allegations; the court had separately dismissed the claims against Royce for lack of personal involvement.

Procedural due-process claim. Jackson alleged that Gutwein and Rivera denied him adequate process during the disciplinary hearing. The court held that 60 days of keeplock confinement and 90-day losses of privileges did not impose the unusual and significant hardship needed to create a protected liberty interest. The court further held that, even assuming such an interest existed, Gutwein provided sufficient process: Jackson could question witnesses, received some requested documents, questioned a representative of the testing-machine manufacturer, and faced at least some evidence supporting the guilty finding. The court also held that Rivera’s requested adjournment could not have deprived Jackson of adequate process because the request was denied and the hearing occurred as scheduled. The court dismissed this claim against Gutwein and Rivera, and dismissed the claim against Deegan and Dahl because Jackson did not allege their personal involvement in the asserted procedural defects.

Retaliation and conspiracy claims. The court recognized that filing a prison grievance is protected activity. But it held that Jackson did not plausibly allege a causal connection between his September 10 grievance against Rossy and his October 11 urine test. Jackson alleged that a computer randomly selected him for testing and did not allege that officials other than Rossy knew about the grievance. The court therefore dismissed the retaliation claim against Rossy, Gutwein, Rivera, Deegan, and Dahl. To the extent Jackson asserted a Section 1983 conspiracy claim, the court held that his allegations were conclusory, that the employees generally could not be treated as conspiring with one another as employees of the same entity, and that the conspiracy claim also failed because there was no underlying constitutional violation.

The court also stated that claims based solely on violations of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directives or related regulations were not actionable and were dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Jackson’s First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief with prejudice because amendment would be futile. It granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Claim for Relief without prejudice. Jackson could file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days, but only to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the medical-needs claim and not for any other purpose. The court instructed that any such amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint.