Tripathy v. Feuz

Background

Sanjay Tripathy, proceeding without a lawyer, sued officials and employees connected with New York’s sex-offender counseling and treatment program, known as SOCTP. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the False Claims Act. He also asserted claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Tripathy alleged that he is Hindu and that a fundamental tenet of his faith prohibits lying. He claimed that successful completion of SOCTP required him to admit guilt for offenses of which he maintained he was innocent. He also alleged that Dr. Ryan Brotz placed him in a longer, moderate-risk treatment tier rather than a low-risk tier and retaliated against him after he complained through letters, grievances, and this lawsuit.

Before the court was the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against the Fishkill defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The defendants also sought dismissal of the remaining claims for improper venue or transfer to another federal district in New York.

Claims Against the Albany Defendants

Tripathy conceded in his opposition that Governor Kathy Hochul, Tina Stanford, and Michelle Harrington—the Albany defendants—were not personally or directly involved in the controversy. The court therefore dismissed all claims against those defendants under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Claims Against the Fishkill Defendants

The court granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, as to Tripathy’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Fishkill defendants. Tripathy had been transferred from Fishkill to Collins on October 19, 2021, and he acknowledged that he did not begin SOCTP until after the transfer and that the program was being administered at Collins. Because the Fishkill defendants had no alleged control over the program at Collins, the court concluded that the requested relief against them was moot.

The court also granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of Tripathy’s damages claims against the Fishkill defendants under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. For a damages claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must plausibly allege each defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Tripathy did not allege facts showing that the Fishkill defendants had any role in administering his SOCTP at Collins. His interactions with Fishkill officials occurred before he participated in the program and, according to the court, amounted at most to advice about Fishkill or Department of Corrections and Community Supervision policy.

The court also dismissed Tripathy’s claims for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act because the court stated that the statute does not allow money damages against state officers in either their official or individual capacities.

The court dismissed the conspiracy claims against the Fishkill defendants under Sections 1983 and 1985 and under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The court found that Tripathy supplied no facts showing an agreement between the Fishkill defendants and the other defendants, or that the Fishkill defendants knew about or agreed to Dr. Brotz’s decisions concerning Tripathy’s treatment placement.

Venue and Transfer

The court denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Rather than decide whether venue remained proper in the Southern District of New York after the Fishkill defendants were dismissed, the court concluded that transferring the remaining claims would better serve the interests of justice and judicial economy than dismissing them.

The court granted the motion to transfer the remaining claims against Dr. Brotz and the DOCCS defendants to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The court stated that the case could have been brought there, that the operative events occurred at Collins, and that key witnesses and relevant documents were likely located there. The court found that these considerations favored the Western District more strongly than the Northern District of New York.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court declined to give Tripathy another opportunity to amend his complaint. It noted that he had previously received leave to amend to address deficiencies identified in an earlier motion, but that his amended complaint did not correct those deficiencies. The court concluded that another amendment would be futile.

The order granted the Rule 12(b)(1) motion as to Tripathy’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Fishkill defendants; granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to the Fishkill and Albany defendants; denied the Rule 12(b)(3) motion; and granted the motion to transfer the action against Dr. Brotz and the DOCCS defendants to the Western District of New York. The court directed the clerk to terminate the Fishkill and Albany defendants and transfer the action. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.