Labossiere v. Downstate Correctional Facility

Background

Wilfred Labossiere filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated. He represented himself. He alleged that events at Downstate Correctional Facility between December 4, 2020, and July 11, 2021, violated his constitutional rights. The defendants were Downstate Correctional Facility, Correction Officer Akinwunmi, and Correction Officer A. Jones.

Labossiere alleged that Akinwunmi harassed and intimidated him after he asked that the law library be opened, checked on his whereabouts, called him a “RAT and Snitch,” interfered with meetings with his counselor and Imam, opened his legal mail and removed contents, and filed a false report that resulted in seven days of keeplock. He also alleged that he was delayed in accessing the law library and that his mail was tampered with. The court noted that one grievance referred to a lobby officer as “Ms. Akramie,” but assumed for purposes of the order that this person was Akinwunmi based on the context.

Screening standard

Because Labossiere was a prisoner proceeding without paying the filing fee in advance, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, sought damages from an immune defendant, or otherwise failed to state a claim. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough facts to make liability plausible.

Rulings on the claims

Downstate Correctional Facility

The court dismissed Labossiere’s claims against Downstate Correctional Facility for failure to state a claim. Section 1983 permits claims against a “person” who violates federal rights under state authority, and the court held that a correctional facility is not a “person” for purposes of that statute.

Officer A. Jones

The court explained that a Section 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement. Labossiere did not allege facts showing how Officer A. Jones was involved in the events. The court instructed that any amended complaint naming Jones must provide those facts. The order granted leave to amend rather than stating that the claims against Jones were dismissed in the conclusion.

Access to the courts and legal mail

The court interpreted the complaint as asserting that Labossiere was denied access to the courts because of restricted law-library access and tampering with legal mail. To state an access-to-courts claim, he needed to allege deliberate and malicious conduct that caused actual injury, such as the loss or dismissal of a nonfrivolous legal claim. The court found that he did not identify an underlying legal claim, explain prejudice to an ongoing proceeding, describe the legal mail or the harm caused by its alleged interference, or allege that he was actually denied access to the law library. The court stated that a delay in working on a legal matter was insufficient.

The court also construed the allegations as a general mail-tampering claim. It found that Labossiere did not allege facts showing regular and unjustified interference with his mail, or that the interference affected his access to the courts or impaired his legal representation.

First Amendment retaliation

The court construed the complaint as asserting that Akinwunmi retaliated against Labossiere for exercising First Amendment rights. It held that he failed to state a retaliation claim because he did not allege that he engaged in speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment. The alleged conduct leading to the retaliation was his request that an area sergeant ask Akinwunmi to open the law library, and the court concluded that he had no First Amendment right to access the library whenever he chose.

Due process and keeplock

The court construed the allegation about a false misbehavior report and seven days of keeplock as a procedural due-process claim. It held that the alleged seven-day confinement, followed by release after a lieutenant investigated the report, did not show a deprivation serious enough to create a protected liberty interest. The court therefore found that the due-process allegations failed to state a claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Labossiere 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the people allegedly involved, describe what each person did, provide relevant dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the relief sought. It will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Labossiere wants to preserve must be repeated. The court warned that failure to amend on time, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The court dismissed the claims against Downstate Correctional Facility. It granted leave to amend the complaint as to the other allegations. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.