Carzoglio v. Abrams

Background

Angelo Carzoglio, who was incarcerated, proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that provides a way to seek relief for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. The defendant was Thomas Abrams, identified in the opinion as a former captain in the Westchester County Department of Corrections.

Carzoglio’s claims arose from searches conducted on May 19 and June 8, 2017. He alleged that Abrams was responsible for a strip search violating the Fourth Amendment, a cell search violating the Eighth Amendment, sexual abuse violating the Eighth Amendment, and denial of access to the courts violating the First Amendment. After discovery, Abrams moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the evidence did not permit a reasonable jury to find for Carzoglio. The court considered Carzoglio’s late-filed factual statement but treated unsupported factual assertions as insufficient to dispute evidence supported by the record.

Analysis and Holdings

Fourth Amendment strip-search claim

The court granted summary judgment on the strip-search claim concerning both the May 19 and June 8 searches.

For the May 19 strip search, Abrams admitted ordering the search. The court applied a reasonableness test that considers the search’s scope, the manner in which it was conducted, the justification for it, and the location. The court held that all four factors favored Abrams: the search was conducted by officers of the same sex as Carzoglio; the record showed no inappropriate touching, violence, or coercion during the search; Abrams had information about suspicious conduct and Carzoglio’s prior discipline for concealing a weapon; and the search took place in a private area used for strip searches. The court also stated that alleged inappropriate comments by a supervisor who was present would not make an otherwise reasonable search unreasonable without additional allegations of physical or sexual abuse.

As to the June 8 strip search, the court held that Carzoglio failed to show Abrams’s personal involvement. Abrams was not working at the jail that day, denied ordering or knowing about the searches, and Carzoglio offered no evidence beyond speculation that Abrams had ordered them. The court held that Abrams’s prior supervisory role was not enough to establish liability.

Eighth Amendment cell-search claim

The court granted summary judgment on the cell-search claim. It held that a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim based on a cell search requires proof that the search was objectively serious and that the defendant acted with the required culpable state of mind. The court concluded that a single cell search was not objectively serious enough to violate the Eighth Amendment as a matter of law. It also stated that, even if the objective requirement had been met, Abrams would be entitled to summary judgment because the stated purpose of looking for weapons, given Carzoglio’s history, was a legitimate prison-security reason.

Eighth Amendment sexual-abuse claim

The court granted summary judgment on the sexual-abuse claim. It considered the remaining allegations involving two pat-and-frisk searches because it had already found that Abrams was not personally involved in the June 8 events and that the May 19 strip search was constitutionally reasonable.

Carzoglio testified that the alleged touching of his buttocks lasted no more than three seconds on each occasion. The court held that this brief contact was not objectively serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. The court also held that there was no sufficient evidence of Abrams’s required state of mind. The alleged laughter came from the officer who performed the pat and frisk, not Abrams; Abrams denied ordering sexually abusive searches; and Carzoglio acknowledged that he lacked personal knowledge of Abrams’s state of mind. The court found that speculation and unsupported hearsay did not create a genuine issue for trial.

First Amendment access-to-courts claim

The court granted summary judgment on the access-to-courts claim. Carzoglio alleged that officers disturbed his legal materials and distracted him from legal work during two searches. The court held that an access-to-courts claim requires proof of actual injury, such as the loss or dismissal of an otherwise meritorious legal claim. The record contained no evidence of actual injury, and the court concluded that the alleged disruption on a single occasion did not satisfy that requirement.

Disposition

The court granted Abrams’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the amended complaint against Abrams with prejudice in its entirety, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Abrams, and closed the case.