Allevato v. Mallozzi

Background

Michael F. Allevato, who was incarcerated and representing himself, brought constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against David Howard, M. Weig, and Switz based on events at Woodbourne Correctional Facility. He alleged that Howard interfered with his access to the courts and failed to address his grievances. He alleged that Weig and Switz failed to treat rashes and shortness of breath, and he asserted an imminent-danger claim based on being housed with prisoners he said threatened him.

The case originally included Shelley Mallozzi, the Director of the Inmate Grievance Program for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The Northern District of New York transferred the claims arising at Woodbourne to this court but dismissed the access-to-courts claim against Mallozzi with leave to replead. That court also concluded that challenging the handling of grievances did not state a constitutional claim. This court later directed Allevato to submit an updated prisoner authorization and granted him permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Access to the Courts

The court treated Allevato’s allegations about notary services, subpoena templates, and the mailing of a $5 filing fee as an access-to-courts claim. To state such a claim, a prisoner must show that officials hindered an arguably valid underlying legal claim and caused actual injury.

The court concluded that Allevato had not shown actual injury in his pending habeas proceeding. The court reviewed that proceeding and found that notarization was not required for the documents at issue; Allevato had submitted a notarized petition and numerous other notarized documents, as well as one document without notarization. The court also found that a subpoena form was not required in a habeas proceeding and that Allevato did not allege that his inability to file one affected his case. Finally, the brief delay in payment of the filing fee did not affect the habeas proceeding because the issue was addressed within one week. The court allowed Allevato to amend and provide facts showing that Howard hindered a valid claim and caused actual injury.

Medical-Treatment Claims

The court treated the allegations about the failure to treat Allevato’s medical conditions as Eighth Amendment claims under § 1983. Such a claim requires facts showing both a serious medical condition and that officials knowingly or recklessly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. A disagreement over the appropriate treatment generally does not meet this standard.

As to Weig and Switz, the court found that Allevato alleged rashes and shortness of breath but did not show that these conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm. Even assuming that they did, the court found that his allegations described a disagreement about the cause and treatment of his conditions. He alleged that Weig and Switz attributed the rashes to soap, advised him to avoid foods that triggered his asthma, and attempted to investigate his medical problems. The court allowed him to amend by alleging facts showing that these defendants knew of a substantial health risk and deliberately ignored it.

As to Howard, Allevato relied on Howard’s supervisory position and did not allege facts showing Howard’s personal involvement in the medical care. The court dismissed the medical claims against Howard for failure to state a claim.

Grievance Claims

The court treated Allevato’s allegations that Howard failed to respond adequately to grievances as a procedural due process claim. It held that a prison grievance program is not constitutionally required and that an official’s failure to follow state grievance procedures does not, by itself, deprive a prisoner of a constitutionally protected right. The court dismissed the grievance claim against Howard for failure to state a claim.

Imminent-Danger Claim

Allevato alleged that other prisoners had threatened him, shared his personal information, possessed weapons, and used a substance that worsened his asthma. Because he had been transferred from Woodbourne to Mid-State Correctional Facility, the court found it unclear whether he still sought relief on this claim. The court granted him leave to provide facts supporting the claim and to explain the relief he sought.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Allevato 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims he wished to preserve had to be repeated. The court instructed him to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested.

The Clerk of Court was directed to remove Shelley Mallozzi from this action because the Northern District of New York had not transferred the claims against her. The court dismissed the grievance and medical claims against Howard for failure to state a claim. It denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. No summons issued at that time.