White v. Gutwein

Background

Mike White, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and represented himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Eric Gutwein, C. Story, D. Venettozzi, and T. Griffin denied him procedural due process during a disciplinary proceeding and failed to protect him from an assault. In his amended complaint, White also named the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), Lieutenant Deagan, and John & Jane Doe(s). His claims included malicious prosecution, religious-freedom violations, wrongful confinement, failure to protect, failure to train, conditions of confinement, procedural due process, and excessive force.

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and allowed White to amend claims that had been dismissed without prejudice. After White did not appear to meet the extended filing deadline, the court dismissed his claims with prejudice. White’s amended complaint was later received and docketed. He certified that he had submitted it to prison authorities for mailing on October 13, 2022. The defendants conceded that the amended complaint was filed within the timeframe designated by the court, so the court accepted it as timely, vacated the later dismissal order, and considered the amended complaint.

Rulings

Claims against DOCCS. The court dismissed White’s damages claims against DOCCS because the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and state entities from suits for damages in federal court. The court stated that New York had not waived that immunity and that Congress had not removed it through § 1983.

Failure to train. The court dismissed the failure-to-train claims with prejudice. It explained that this type of claim may be brought against a municipality, but DOCCS is a state government entity rather than a municipal government entity, and the complaint also asserted the claims against individual defendants.

Claims against Griffin, Venettozzi, and John & Jane Doe(s). The court dismissed these claims without prejudice. White did not mention Griffin or the John & Jane Doe defendants outside the caption. As to Venettozzi, White alleged only that he affirmed a hearing officer’s decision and acted in a supervisory role. The court held that these allegations did not show the defendants’ personal involvement in the alleged violations.

Statute of limitations. The court applied New York’s three-year limitations period to White’s § 1983 claims based on personal injuries. It dismissed with prejudice claims concerning events before June 5, 2017, including: (1) the alleged excessive force during White’s March 10, 2017 transport to the Special Housing Unit; (2) due-process violations occurring before the March 16, 2017 disciplinary hearing; (3) due-process violations during the hearing between March 16 and April 7, 2017; and (4) failure-to-protect claims based on an assault occurring on or before May 8, 2017.

Conditions of confinement. White alleged that, while housed in the Special Housing Unit, other incarcerated people repeatedly threatened him and threw feces at him, causing trauma, sleep deprivation, and a need for psychiatric treatment. The court concluded that these allegations described conditions serious enough to satisfy the objective part of an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. But White did not adequately allege that any defendant knew he was being targeted or knew of an excessive risk to his health or safety. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice the Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims arising on or after June 5, 2017.

Other claims. The court dismissed with prejudice White’s malicious-prosecution claims because he did not allege that he ultimately prevailed in the disciplinary hearing or that Gutwein had an improper motive. It dismissed the religious-freedom claims because the allegation that White missed Ramadan during his Special Housing Unit confinement was insufficient. It dismissed the wrongful-confinement claim because the court considered it duplicative of the conditions-of-confinement and due-process claims.

Disposition. The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to allege plausible claims. It dismissed with prejudice all failure-to-train claims, all claims concerning constitutional violations arising before June 5, 2017, and all malicious-prosecution, religious-freedom, and wrongful-confinement claims. It dismissed without prejudice the Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims arising on or after June 5, 2017, and granted White leave to file a second amended complaint by February 22, 2023. The court warned that failing to file one on time, without good cause, would result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims dismissed without prejudice.