Rivera v. Annucci

Background

William Rivera, who was incarcerated at Groveland Correctional Facility and represented himself, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that on August 28, 2016, while incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, the New York State Department of Corrections failed to protect him and he suffered injuries.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed Rivera’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci without prejudice because Rivera had not alleged Annucci’s personal involvement. The court directed Rivera to amend his complaint to state a failure-to-protect claim and explain why the claim should not be dismissed as untimely. Rivera filed an amended complaint on September 14, 2022. It named Bonilla, whom Rivera alleged assaulted him, and Michael Capra, the superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Rivera also attached a document titled “Felony Complaint” seeking to bring criminal charges against Bonilla.

Reasons for Dismissal

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

Claims against Capra. A person sued under Section 1983 must have been directly and personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. Rivera did not allege facts showing that Capra was personally involved in the events. The court therefore dismissed the claim against Capra for failure to state a claim.

Claims and criminal charges against Bonilla. Section 1983 generally applies to conduct carried out under state authority, and private people generally are not liable under that statute. Because Rivera did not allege that Bonilla worked for the government or acted under state authority, the court found that Rivera had not stated a Section 1983 claim against Bonilla. The court also dismissed Rivera’s attempt to bring criminal charges against Bonilla for failure to state a claim. The court explained that the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, not private individuals or the court.

Failure-to-protect claim. Because Rivera was a convicted prisoner when the alleged events occurred, the court evaluated the claim under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A failure-to-protect claim requires facts showing that a prison official knew about and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court found that Rivera again did not allege facts showing that prison officials knew Bonilla posed a serious risk to him or disregarded that risk. The amended complaint therefore did not state a failure-to-protect claim.

Time limit. Section 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year limitations period. Rivera alleged that the injury occurred on August 28, 2016, but he filed the complaint on May 9, 2022, approximately five years and eight months later. Rivera did not explain why the claim should not be considered untimely and alleged no facts supporting a longer filing period based on equitable tolling. The court therefore dismissed the complaint as time barred.

Disposition

The court dismissed Rivera’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim and as time barred. The court declined to give Rivera another opportunity to amend because he had already amended once and the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied appeal status for that purpose, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.