Branch v. Annucci

Background

Walter Branch filed the action without a lawyer against Anthony J. Annucci, Na-Kin Walton, Mr. Gibson, and Lewis. The opinion identifies Annucci as the acting commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Walton as its Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator, Gibson as a department translator, and Lewis as a department instructor.

Branch alleged that he is severely hearing impaired and was not provided reasonable accommodations, including headphones and other necessary items, during disciplinary proceedings and other activities while incarcerated. He alleged that the conduct violated the Clarkson consent decree and Department Directive 2612, which addresses the needs of hearing-impaired incarcerated people. He also alleged that Walton failed to investigate his complaints and ensure enforcement of the consent decree, and that Gibson repeatedly refused to provide accommodations.

Branch requested expungement of his disciplinary dispositions if the defendants could not show that accommodations had been provided, repayment of surcharge money related to those proceedings, compensation connected to his confinement and lawsuit, and accommodations at Eastern Correctional Facility and any other facility to which he might be sent. The defendants stated that Branch had been transferred from Eastern Correctional Facility to a regional medical unit at Coxsackie Correctional Facility on January 19, 2021.

Defendants’ motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (3), and (6), asserting several grounds including mootness, lack of personal involvement, failure to comply with Rule 8, failure to state a cause of action, qualified immunity, and improper venue. Rule 12(b)(1) concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(3) concerns improper venue, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The defendants argued that Branch’s complaint did not give fair notice of his claims. The court disagreed. Reading the allegations liberally because Branch was representing himself, the court found that he identified the accommodations allegedly denied, the relevant period—February 10, 2020, through the filing of the action—and that the alleged denials occurred during disciplinary proceedings and while he was in custody. The court stated that further details could be developed through discovery and denied dismissal under Rule 8.

The defendants also argued that the Clarkson consent decree and Department Directive 2612 did not create a cause of action in federal court and that alleged violations had to be raised before the judge who issued the consent decree. The court explained that individuals may seek money damages under the Clarkson consent decree, but that such claims must be brought as a contempt motion. The court further held that it could construe a complaint as a contempt motion, that the proceeding did not have to be handled by the judge who entered the consent decree, and that venue was proper because the court could enforce its consent decree even though the alleged violations occurred outside the district.

Ruling and next steps

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. It construed Branch’s complaint as a motion for contempt concerning the Clarkson consent decree rather than dismissing it. The defendants were permitted to submit an additional brief responding to the complaint in that form by March 21, 2022, and Branch was permitted to reply by April 11, 2022. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Branch and terminate the dismissal motion.