White v. Gutwein

Background

Mike White, a prisoner at Green Haven Correctional Facility, sued Eric Gutwein, C. Story, D. Venettozzi, and T. Griffin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against state officials for violating federal rights. White alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments arising from a prison disciplinary proceeding, his confinement in a special housing unit, and an assault by another prisoner. He also appeared to assert claims involving religious freedom, malicious prosecution, and wrongful confinement.

In March 2017, White was placed in special housing and received a disciplinary report. He alleged that C. Story, who was assigned to assist him, did not obtain requested documents or interview a witness. He further alleged that Hearing Officer Eric Gutwein denied documentary and witness evidence, was not impartial, found him guilty, and imposed 150 days in special housing, along with losses of good time, commissary, package, and telephone privileges. D. Venettozzi later affirmed the hearing decision, and White alleged that Superintendent T. Griffin did not intervene. White also alleged that another prisoner assaulted him in the recreation yard, causing injuries, and that he was later housed near prisoners who threw feces and urine, creating offensive odors and causing months of sleep deprivation. He said he missed Ramadan because of the special-housing confinement.

Before filing this federal case, White brought a proceeding in New York state court challenging the disciplinary infractions. The opinion states that the state court granted that request in its entirety, but the infractions had not been removed from White’s records.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not state a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-supported factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, interpreted White’s self-represented filings liberally, and still required facts making each claim plausible rather than merely possible or conclusory.

Failure-to-protect claim

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim without prejudice. Such a claim requires facts showing both a substantial risk of serious harm and that officials knew of and disregarded that risk.

The court found White’s allegations about the assailant’s mental illness and prior or subsequent assaults too general and lacking details about the number, timing, and victims of those assaults. As to Gutwein and Story, White alleged no facts showing that they knew, or should have known, about the assailant’s risk to him. As to Griffin, the court found that White’s allegations could suggest knowledge of a generalized risk but did not adequately allege that Griffin failed to take reasonable measures that could have prevented the assault.

Failure-to-train claim

The court dismissed the failure-to-train claim without prejudice. It explained that this type of claim may be brought against a governmental entity, but White sued only individual state officials and did not name a governmental entity.

Conditions-of-confinement claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim and dismissed it without prejudice. The court found that the alleged odors, noise, threats, and sleep deprivation described unpleasant conditions but did not include enough facts showing an objectively serious deprivation of basic human needs or serious resulting harm. The court also found insufficient allegations that the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to White’s health or safety.

Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim and dismissed it without prejudice. White had alleged that Gutwein denied documentary evidence and witness testimony and that Story failed to assist him. The court stated that White’s allegations about Story’s failure to assist were sufficient to address the procedural-assistance aspect of the claim, but it found that White had not adequately alleged a protected liberty interest.

The court reasoned that the 150-day special-housing sentence, loss of privileges, and alleged conditions were not described with enough detail to show an atypical and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life. Because the court found no adequately alleged liberty interest, it did not need to decide whether the disciplinary process itself was constitutionally sufficient. It nevertheless noted that prisoners are entitled to certain protections, including advance notice, a reasonable opportunity to call witnesses and present documents, an impartial hearing officer, and a written decision. The court found White’s allegations that Gutwein was biased and denied evidence too conclusory to state a claim.

Other suggested claims

The court found that White’s allegations were also insufficient to state claims for malicious prosecution, religious freedom, or wrongful confinement. The malicious-prosecution allegations did not include facts about Gutwein’s motive or establish the required outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. The religious-freedom allegation consisted of the statement that White missed Ramadan, without additional supporting facts. The court viewed the wrongful-confinement claim as duplicative of the conditions and due-process claims.

Personal involvement

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss claims against D. Venettozzi and T. Griffin in their individual capacities for lack of adequately alleged personal involvement, and those claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court explained that liability under Section 1983 cannot rest solely on a person’s supervisory position. White’s allegation that Venettozzi affirmed the disciplinary decision was insufficient by itself. His allegations concerning Griffin likewise did not adequately connect Griffin’s own actions to the alleged constitutional violations.

Qualified immunity

The court did not decide the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument. Because it found that White had not adequately stated a constitutional claim, it concluded that it did not need to address qualified immunity.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted White leave to amend and allowed him to replead the claims dismissed without prejudice by September 14, 2022. The order stated that the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice if White failed to file an amended complaint on time and could not show good cause for the failure. The amended complaint was to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.