Amaker v. Gerbing

Background

Anthony D. Amaker proceeded without a lawyer and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing people to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights, based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He also invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The claims concerned events at Otisville Correctional Facility; claims arising at Bare Hill Correctional Facility had previously been severed and transferred to another federal district court.

The represented defendants—K. Gerbing, P. Wolff, D. Venettozzi, Deputy Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, Joseph Bellnier, and Deputy Commissioner Jefferey McKoy—moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Amaker did not file opposition papers despite multiple extensions and warnings. The court denied his fifth extension request because it came after the deadline and because the court had warned that no further extensions would be granted.

Rulings on the claims

The court first addressed jurisdiction. It held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Amaker’s § 1983 First Amendment claims seeking relief against the defendants in their official capacities. The court stated that this ruling did not affect the § 1983 claims against the defendants in their individual capacities or any ADA claim based on a properly stated Fourteenth Amendment violation.

The court then held that the amended complaint did not adequately allege personal involvement by Annucci, Bellnier, McKoy, or Venettozzi. It also held that the complaint did not connect any named defendant to an alleged denial of religious fasting meals during transit between facilities. Those claims were dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement.

The court dismissed Amaker’s Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claims based on disability and race. It found that the allegations did not sufficiently show that similarly situated people were treated differently because of disability or race, or that the relevant defendants intentionally discriminated against him.

The court also held that Amaker failed to state a procedural-due-process claim concerning his disciplinary proceeding. He did not adequately allege a protected liberty interest in the disciplinary confinement or unusual conditions in the special housing unit. The court further found that the added allegations did not show that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to call relevant witnesses or that the hearing officer was not impartial.

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claims. It found that the allegations concerning a planted hotpot, grievances, a transfer, and the disciplinary disposition were speculative and conclusory and did not sufficiently connect the alleged actions to Amaker’s exercise of a constitutional right. The court also stated that the fasting-meal allegations concerned claims that had been severed and transferred to another case, and that Amaker did not press those allegations against defendants in this action.

The court dismissed the ADA claims under Rule 12(b)(6). It held that the ADA claims against defendants in their individual capacities were unavailable because Title II applies to public entities. It also held that any requested injunction concerning Otisville bus passes was moot because Amaker had been released from custody. The court concluded that the damages claims did not adequately allege a Fourteenth Amendment violation motivated by disability-based discriminatory intent or ill will, and that Amaker had not sufficiently shown that he was a qualified individual with a disability. The court stated that any Rehabilitation Act Section 504 claims failed for the same reasons.

Disposition

The court granted the represented defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Amaker’s claims against them. It also dismissed Early, Roberts, Bennett, Gusman, Rio, and Barber under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a provision requiring dismissal of certain claims brought by people proceeding without prepayment of filing fees when the claims fail legally. The court later stated that the claims in the amended complaint were dismissed with prejudice because Amaker had already been given an opportunity to amend and further amendment would be futile. The court denied fee-free status for an appeal and directed the clerk to close the case.