Granados v. NYS DOCCS

Background

Delia Granados filed this self-represented action concerning the suspension of her visitation privileges with her incarcerated boyfriend. Her submissions included forms asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a federal-court damages theory. She alleged, among other things, discrimination, racial profiling, false reports, withholding of evidence, and the indefinite suspension of her visits. She sought reinstatement of visitation, evidence and records, $300,000 in damages, and that “[a]ll charges” be dropped.

Granados originally filed the action in the Northern District of New York, which transferred it to the Southern District of New York. She later filed an amended complaint naming NYS DOCCS, Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, and Woodbourne Correctional Facility Superintendent David Howard. The court construed the original forms, amended complaint, supplements, and exhibits together as one pleading and treated the claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute covering constitutional violations by state actors.

Court’s Analysis

Pleading requirements. The court held that the collection of documents did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The allegations were spread across multiple forms and other filings, were repetitive, and did not provide a short and plain statement showing a plausible entitlement to relief. The court instructed Granados to use one complaint form and avoid unnecessary repetition.

State immunity. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against NYS DOCCS because it is an arm of New York State and is protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court also dismissed Granados’s § 1983 claims for damages against James in her official capacity. The court explained that New York had not waived this immunity and that Congress had not removed it for § 1983 claims. It dismissed these claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court lacked authority to hear them. The court stated that any claims against James, Annucci, or Howard in their individual capacities would also require allegations showing their direct and personal involvement in the alleged violation; it found those allegations absent.

Procedural due process. The court construed Granados’s allegations as asserting that the visitation suspension violated procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that visitation with an incarcerated person is generally a privilege, not a protected property interest, so Granados did not plausibly allege a due-process violation. The court added that, even if a protected interest existed, Granados had not alleged that required procedures were missing or inadequate. To the extent she alleged a random and unauthorized suspension, the court found that New York’s Article 78 proceeding and appeal provided an adequate state remedy, which Granados had used. The court therefore dismissed the procedural-due-process claims for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against NYS DOCCS and the § 1983 claims for damages against James in her official capacity based on state immunity and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed the damages claims under § 1983 against James, Annucci, and Howard for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed the § 1983 procedural-due-process claims for failure to state a claim.

The court granted Granados 30 days to file a second amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and addresses the identified deficiencies. The second amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the earlier filings. The court stated that any state-law claims remaining after another failure to state a federal claim would be dismissed without prejudice to pursuing them in an appropriate state court. The court kept the matter open while awaiting the amended complaint, directed that no summons issue at that time, and denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.