Bing v. Annucci

Background

Kalleem Bing brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by state officials. Bing sued Anthony J. Annucci, identified as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Bing alleged that events at Fishkill Correctional Facility on November 7 and 9, 2020, involved false accusations that he possessed contraband and engaged in violent conduct, followed by a disciplinary hearing that was not conducted properly. He sought money damages.

The action was transferred to the Southern District of New York because the events giving rise to the claims took place at Fishkill Correctional Facility, which the opinion states is located in that district.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the complaint under federal statutes requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Personal involvement. A claim under Section 1983 requires facts showing that the defendant was directly and personally involved in the alleged violation. A supervisor cannot be held liable merely because an employee or subordinate allegedly violated someone’s rights. The court found that Bing alleged only that Annucci generally failed to train and supervise staff. Bing did not allege facts showing Annucci’s specific involvement in the disciplinary hearing or the events leading to it. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Annucci for failure to state a claim.

False misbehavior report. The court explained that an incarcerated person does not generally have a constitutional right to be free from false accusations in a prison misbehavior report. Such allegations ordinarily do not state a constitutional claim unless there is an additional basis, such as retaliation for exercising constitutional rights. Because Bing did not allege retaliation or another basis suggesting that his constitutional rights were violated, the court dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim.

Disciplinary hearing. The court treated Bing’s allegation that the hearing was not conducted properly as a procedural due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a claim requires an implicated liberty or property interest and a failure to provide the process required before taking that interest away. In the prison-discipline context, a liberty interest generally requires an atypical and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life. Bing did not describe any punishment imposed at the hearing or allege an atypical and significant hardship. The court therefore found that he failed to state a procedural-due-process claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because Bing was proceeding without a lawyer and might be able to state a valid claim by providing additional facts, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the individuals allegedly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the relief sought. If Bing did not know a defendant’s name, the court allowed him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” with a description.

The amended complaint will completely replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims Bing wants considered must be repeated. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Bing failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court dismissed Bing’s claims against Annucci for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.