Johnson v. Department of Corrections

Background

Chad S. Johnson, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under Section 1983 against Superintendent Robert Morton, Deputy of Security Edward Burnett, Sergeant S. Petrie, Lt. Calvitti, Correction Officer D. Allen, Correction Officer Mason Hamilton, Correction Officer Travis Small, Correction Officer James Makel, and Correction Officer Raymond Ortiz. Johnson alleged that, while incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility, defendants forced him to sell illegal drugs to other inmates and punished him when he stopped.

Johnson alleged that Correction Officer Hamilton planted contraband in his cell at Sergeant Petrie’s direction, resulting in two days of keeplock. He alleged that Lt. Calvitti then conducted a disciplinary hearing and told him what to say, while imposing a sentence of time served. Johnson further alleged that Sergeant Petrie gave him a cellphone and drugs, directed him to sell the drugs, and threatened to set him up again if he did not cooperate. He alleged that Correction Officer Allen later supplied him with drugs and told him to sell heroin.

Johnson alleged that he stopped selling drugs in January 2021 after recording conversations with the officers. He said Sergeant Petrie then moved him to the Special Housing Unit and issued him a disciplinary ticket for possessing a cellphone. Johnson also alleged that Correction Officers Small, Makel, and Ortiz intentionally destroyed his legal papers.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. Johnson did not oppose the motion, despite receiving multiple extensions to do so.

Personal involvement. The court dismissed the claims against Superintendent Morton and Deputy Burnett because Johnson did not allege facts showing that either defendant knew about, or should have known about, the alleged drug-selling scheme. The court concluded that the other defendants’ supervisory or employment positions were not enough by themselves to establish liability under Section 1983.

Failure to protect. The court treated Johnson’s allegations that officers forced him to sell drugs as a claim that prison officials failed to protect him from an unreasonable risk to his safety under the Eighth Amendment. The court held that Johnson plausibly alleged this claim against Sergeant Petrie and Correction Officer Allen because he alleged that they personally supplied him with drugs and directed him to sell them to other inmates. The claim against those two defendants was allowed to proceed.

Retaliation. The court held that Johnson plausibly alleged that Sergeant Petrie retaliated against him after he said he would no longer sell drugs and asked Petrie to leave him alone. Although the court described whether this conduct was protected activity as a close question, it inferred that Johnson may have been preparing to file a grievance or lawsuit about the alleged scheme. The court also found that Johnson plausibly alleged adverse action and a causal connection because Petrie allegedly filed a false disciplinary report and placed Johnson in the Special Housing Unit the same day. The retaliation claim against Sergeant Petrie was allowed to proceed.

Conspiracy. The court allowed Johnson’s conspiracy claim to proceed against Sergeant Petrie, Correction Officer Allen, and Correction Officer Hamilton. It found that Johnson’s allegations that the officers worked together—including planting contraband, supplying drugs, and responding to his decision to stop selling—supported a plausible inference of an agreement. The court dismissed the conspiracy claim against Lt. Calvitti because Johnson did not allege facts showing that Calvitti agreed with the other defendants to smuggle drugs into the facility.

Due process. The court dismissed Johnson’s due-process claims concerning his two days of keeplock, the disciplinary hearing, and his placement in the Special Housing Unit. Johnson did not allege that the two-day keeplock was unusually harsh, that the hearing resulted in discipline implicating a protected liberty interest, or the length or conditions of his Special Housing Unit confinement.

Access to the courts. The court dismissed Johnson’s claim concerning the destruction of his legal papers. Although it treated the claim as alleging that the destruction hindered a legal case, Johnson did not identify the affected legal claim or allege an actual injury resulting from the loss of the papers.

Qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is protection from liability for officials whose conduct did not violate clearly established law. The court rejected the defendants’ request for qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage because Johnson plausibly alleged that Sergeant Petrie, Correction Officer Allen, and Correction Officer Hamilton violated established constitutional rights by forcing him to sell drugs and that Sergeant Petrie retaliated against him for complaining about the scheme.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The following claims may proceed: the failure-to-protect claim against Sergeant Petrie and Correction Officer Allen; the conspiracy claim against Sergeant Petrie, Correction Officer Allen, and Correction Officer Hamilton; and the retaliation claim against Sergeant Petrie. All other claims were dismissed.

The court ordered Sergeant Petrie, Correction Officer Allen, and Correction Officer Hamilton to answer the amended complaint by May 30, 2022. The Clerk was instructed to terminate Lt. Calvitti, Edward Burnett, Correction Officer Travis Small, Correction Officer James Makel, Superintendent Robert Morton, and Correction Officer Raymond Ortiz from the docket. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.