Latimer v. Royce

Background

Corey A. Latimer, Sr., representing himself and without prepaying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action under a federal law known as Section 1983. He sued New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Commissioner Anthony Annucci, Green Haven Correctional Facility Superintendent Mark Royce, Green Haven sergeants Rosita Rossy and David Mazella, and DOCCS Inmate Grievance Program Director Shelley Mallozzi, in both their individual and official capacities.

Latimer alleged that Rossy and Mazella confiscated his face mask on April 14, 2020, while he was incarcerated at Green Haven during the COVID-19 pandemic. He filed a grievance seeking a new mask, but the grievance was denied. The denial stated that the confiscation followed a direction from Commissioner Annucci allowing inmates to use a state-issued handkerchief as a face covering. Latimer appealed, but the opinion states that the outcome of that appeal was unclear. He alleged that he tested positive for COVID-19 on July 19, 2020, was placed in isolation, and that Green Haven later required all inmates to wear masks like the one confiscated from him.

Official-Capacity Claims

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. They argued that claims against them in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state officials sued in their official capacities from federal lawsuits without the state’s consent or a valid federal override.

The court agreed and dismissed the claims against all defendants in their official capacities. The court stated that the defendants were DOCCS employees and that New York had neither waived its immunity nor had Congress removed it for these claims.

Personal Involvement

The court then considered whether Latimer alleged that Commissioner Annucci, Superintendent Royce, and Director Mallozzi were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. Personal involvement is required for damages under Section 1983; a person generally cannot be held liable merely because they supervise someone else.

The court dismissed the claims against Royce and Mallozzi for lack of personal involvement. Latimer did not allege that Royce or Mallozzi confiscated the mask, knew it had been confiscated, or created the policy under which the confiscation occurred. The court found that Mallozzi’s acknowledgment of Latimer’s grievance appeal was not enough, and Latimer did not mention Royce in the complaint.

The court reached a different conclusion regarding Annucci. Reading Latimer’s filings liberally, the court found that he plausibly alleged Annucci enacted the policy under which the mask was confiscated, rather than merely supervising the officers or participating in the grievance process.

Eighth Amendment Claims

The court rejected the argument that Latimer failed to state a constitutional claim against Annucci, Rossy, and Mazella. The court treated the allegations as claims under the Eighth Amendment concerning prison conditions.

To state such a claim, a prisoner must plausibly allege both that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the official knew about and disregarded that risk. The court found the alleged risk plausible because COVID-19 posed a significant risk of serious illness and death, Latimer alleged that his mask was taken during the pandemic, and he alleged that he later contracted COVID-19. The court also found it plausible that the risks of removing masks from inmates in a confined prison setting were obvious to Annucci, Rossy, and Mazella.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The official-capacity claims were dismissed, and the claims against Royce and Mallozzi were dismissed for lack of personal involvement. The claims against Annucci, Rossy, and Mazella were allowed to proceed because Latimer plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against them. Those three defendants were ordered to answer by May 2, 2022.

The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Latimer permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The clerk was instructed to terminate Royce and Mallozzi from the docket and to terminate the motion.