Williams v. Barometre

Background

Ozan Williams, representing himself, sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and DOCCS Superintendent Delta Barometre. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA). Williams alleged that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his hearing-related medical needs, punished him because he could not hear orders, and failed to reasonably accommodate his hearing impairment. He expressly sought only injunctive or other equitable relief, not money damages.

Williams’s allegations concerned hearing aids, medical treatment, grievances, and disciplinary reports issued at several correctional facilities. He alleged that he received disciplinary reports after failing to follow orders that he could not hear because of problems with his hearing aids. The court noted that the complaint did not clearly identify each legal claim, so it interpreted the filing broadly because Williams was representing himself.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim. Williams also raised new allegations in his opposition papers about a search, seizure of property, and retaliation. The court declined to consider those allegations because they involved new matters and legal theories not encompassed by the complaint.

Constitutional Claims

The court treated Williams’s allegations as potentially raising Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims concerning prison discipline.

For the Eighth Amendment claims, the court held that Williams did not plausibly allege Barometre’s personal involvement. Most of the hearing-aid allegations concerned medical decisions at Downstate or Sing Sing, while Barometre was the superintendent at Otisville. The court also found that a document attached to the complaint contradicted Williams’s allegation that Barometre affirmed a disciplinary decision; the document identified Deputy Superintendent Noeth instead. The court concluded that merely receiving or being copied on correspondence was insufficient to establish Barometre’s personal involvement. It therefore granted the motion as to the Eighth Amendment claims and dismissed them.

For the Fourteenth Amendment claims, the court found that Williams did not allege facts showing that he was denied the process required for prison discipline. He did not allege that he lacked a hearing, advance notice, written findings, or adequate information about the disciplinary reports. He also failed to plausibly allege Barometre’s personal involvement. The court therefore granted the motion as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims and dismissed them.

The court separately held that DOCCS was an arm of the State of New York for purposes of constitutional immunity. Because Williams sued DOCCS itself rather than a state official for prospective relief, the court concluded that the exception allowing certain claims for ongoing violations did not apply. It granted the motion as to Williams’s constitutional claims against DOCCS and dismissed those claims.

The defendants also raised qualified immunity as to Barometre. The court did not decide that issue because it concluded that Williams had not plausibly alleged a constitutional violation or Barometre’s personal involvement.

ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims

The court analyzed the ADA and RA claims together because, on the allegations presented, the relevant differences between the statutes did not affect the analysis. The court found that Williams plausibly alleged that his hearing impairment substantially limited hearing, making him a qualified individual with a disability. It also found that state prisons are subject to both statutes.

The court rejected dismissal based on standing at the pleading stage. Williams alleged that his hearing-aid problems remained unresolved, that he remained incarcerated, and that he continued to encounter audible orders from correctional officers. The court found those allegations sufficient at that early stage to allege a real and immediate possibility of continued harm relevant to his request for injunctive relief.

The court found that Williams had not adequately alleged intentional disparate treatment. But it concluded that his allegations barely supported two other theories: disparate impact and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The alleged practice of giving orders orally or through loudspeakers was facially neutral, but Williams alleged that it adversely affected people with hearing impairments and resulted in disciplinary consequences. He also plausibly alleged that Otisville failed to account for his hearing impairment when giving orders.

The court emphasized that the case was at the motion-to-dismiss stage and that later fact development might show that accommodations had been provided or that the alleged practice did not have the claimed impact. Even so, it held that the ADA and RA claims were sufficiently pleaded. It denied the motion as to those claims.

Disposition

The court stated that the defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. It was granted as to Williams’s constitutional claims and denied as to his ADA and RA claims. Because this was the first adjudication of the constitutional claims on the merits, their dismissal was without prejudice. Williams was permitted to file an amended complaint within 30 days addressing the deficiencies. The court warned that failure to meet that deadline could result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims dismissed without prejudice. The surviving ADA and RA claims remained in the case.