Marcus v. Annucci

Background

Anthony Marcus, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to sue state officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that five employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision violated his rights in connection with disciplinary charges brought in October 2018.

Marcus was placed in keeplock and charged with drug possession, smuggling, a facility visitation violation, and a phone-program violation. A hearing officer, Eric Gutwein, found him guilty and imposed 45 days of keeplock, 90 days without recreation, packages, commissary, and phone privileges, 180 days without visitation, and a recommendation that two months of good-time credit be deducted. The determination was later administratively reversed and expunged because the agency failed to maintain a complete electronic record of the hearing.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim. Marcus did not file opposition papers.

Claims Against Annucci, Venettozzi, and LaManna

The court dismissed the claims against Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, Director of Special Housing Donald Venettozzi, and former Green Haven Superintendent Jamie LaManna. Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that each defendant was personally involved in the constitutional violation. The court concluded that Marcus relied on Annucci’s supervisory position, mentioned LaManna only in the caption and as the superintendent, and alleged that Venettozzi only reviewed and affirmed the disciplinary decision. Those allegations were insufficient to show personal involvement.

Eighth Amendment Claim

The court dismissed Marcus’s Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. Marcus alleged that the keeplock confinement and loss of privileges amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The court held that, without additional facts, these deprivations were not sufficiently serious to deny the basic necessities of life protected by the Eighth Amendment.

The court also explained that allegations that Malave filed a false charging document or gave false testimony did not, by themselves, state an Eighth Amendment claim. The court found that Marcus had not adequately explained what was false in the report or testimony to support a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Malave based on those allegations.

Fourteenth Amendment Procedural-Due-Process Claim

Procedural due process concerns whether the government used fair procedures before depriving someone of a protected liberty interest. The court allowed Marcus’s claim against Gutwein to proceed. Marcus alleged that, while he was in segregated housing, he requested visitor logs, phone records, photographs, visitor-registration documents, and other call records to help defend himself. He alleged that his tier assistant did not obtain the documents and that Gutwein did not secure them after learning of the problem.

The court assumed, solely for purposes of the motion to dismiss, that losing all visitation for 180 days could implicate a protected liberty interest. It stated that the issue could be reconsidered after discovery. The court also concluded that the existing complaint did not establish as a matter of law whether Gutwein’s handling of the requested documents satisfied the requirement that Marcus receive a meaningful opportunity to present documentary evidence at the disciplinary hearing.

Conspiracy Claim

The court dismissed Marcus’s conspiracy claim. It found that he pleaded no nonconclusory facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds among the defendants. The court also held that the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine barred the claim because the defendants were employees of the same agency and were alleged to have acted within the scope of their employment.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. All claims were dismissed except the Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process claim against Gutwein. That claim was allowed to proceed to discovery, and Gutwein was directed to file an answer within 21 days. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and to remove Annucci, Venettozzi, LaManna, and Malave from the docket.