Miller v. Annucci

Background

Daniel Miller and Mary Miller, proceeding without lawyers, brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleged that current and former employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision violated Daniel Miller’s constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

In a September 24, 2021 order, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies. That order granted summary judgment to the defendants on Miller’s claim that Anthony Annucci maintained an unofficial policy or custom allowing abuse and harassment of inmates who are LGBT, are sex offenders, or submit grievances. The court ruled that Miller had not exhausted that claim. The earlier order also told Miller to request an extension of time to serve three defendants—C.O. Griffiths, Sergeant Anspach, and Lieutenant Hann—or risk dismissal of the claims against them.

Miller later submitted a letter concerning those three defendants and moved for reconsideration of the ruling on the claim against Annucci. He argued that the claim was related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act and therefore could not be grieved. He attached documents that he claimed supported his argument and also sought permission to file a supplemental complaint with additional facts.

Claims Against the Unserved Defendants

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If service does not occur, the court must dismiss the action against the unserved defendant or order service within a specified time, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure. Courts may also extend the deadline without good cause in their discretion.

The court found that the amended complaint had been docketed on October 12, 2018, and that Griffiths, Anspach, and Hann still had not been served. It found that Miller had failed to show good cause. The court noted that the docket did not show receipt of Miller’s claimed January 29, 2019 letter requesting an order of service. It also found that Miller had received later notice that the defendants remained unserved, including through the defendants’ summary-judgment briefing and the court’s September 2021 order.

Although the September 2021 order gave Miller 30 days to request an extension, the court found that his later letter did not request an extension or otherwise show an effort to serve the defendants. The court also found that the unserved defendants were prejudiced by the delay. It declined to grant another discretionary extension and dismissed Miller’s claims against Griffiths, Anspach, and Hann. The opinion does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier decision. The court explained that such a motion generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent a serious injustice. It is not a vehicle for presenting arguments or materials that were previously available but were not submitted earlier.

The court denied reconsideration of the ruling on the Annucci Claim. It stated that Miller appeared to concede that he had not exhausted the claim but argued that he had been told the claim was not subject to the prison grievance process. The court found that Miller had not identified a change in controlling law, relevant new evidence, clear error, or serious injustice. It further found that the attached documents concerned his incarceration at Franklin Correctional Facility rather than the Green Haven incarceration involved in this action, and that the documents dated from late 2019 and therefore were not new when he opposed summary judgment.

Supplemental Complaint and Disposition

The court also denied Miller’s request to file a supplemental complaint concerning an issue from December 2017. Because the court declined to reconsider the ruling that disposed of the Annucci Claim for failure to exhaust, it found that additional allegations supporting that claim were not relevant.

The court therefore dismissed the claims against the three unserved defendants, denied Miller’s motion for reconsideration of the ruling on the Annucci Claim, and denied his request to file a supplemental complaint. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the order on January 13, 2022.