Mitchell v. JPay, LLC

Background

Dontie S. Mitchell brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows people to seek relief for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state authority. He alleged violations of the First and Eighth Amendments arising from events at Fishkill Correctional Facility, a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision facility. Mitchell was representing himself.

Mitchell founded the Ujamaa Fraternal Dynasty, which he described as an organization intended to encourage and mentor prisoners and steer them away from gangs, drugs, and violence. The corrections department designated the organization as unauthorized. On July 22, 2021, Sergeant Daniel Pauselius confiscated a paper poster bearing the organization’s logo and later issued Mitchell a disciplinary report charging violations for belonging to an unauthorized organization and possessing contraband.

On August 2, 2021, Food Service Administrator Robert McCloskey conducted the disciplinary hearing. Mitchell argued that the report and rules were being applied unconstitutionally. McCloskey found him guilty and imposed a suspended penalty of 75 days in solitary confinement and loss of unspecified privileges. Mitchell alleged that the possibility of being placed in solitary confinement caused emotional anguish and anxiety.

The court considered a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. The motion was filed by McCloskey and Pauselius. The opinion states that JPay had not appeared in the action as of that date.

First Amendment retaliation claim

To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, Mitchell had to plausibly allege that he engaged in protected conduct, the defendants took action that could deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising constitutional rights, and the protected conduct substantially motivated the adverse action.

The court concluded that Mitchell had not alleged protected conduct as to McCloskey and Pauselius. Mitchell acknowledged that the corrections department had designated the organization unauthorized, and he did not allege that either moving defendant participated in that designation. The court therefore treated possession of the poster as the relevant conduct. It held that Mitchell had no constitutional right to possess material prohibited under the prison rules he identified. The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim without prejudice.

The court expressly stated that whether the corrections department’s designation of the organization as unauthorized violated Mitchell’s First Amendment rights was outside the scope of this motion because Mitchell did not allege that McCloskey or Pauselius was involved in the designation.

Eighth Amendment claim

An Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim requires allegations that the deprivation was objectively serious and that the responsible official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, ordinarily deliberate indifference to an inmate’s health or safety.

The court held that a suspended solitary-confinement penalty, even with the emotional anguish and anxiety Mitchell alleged, was objectively far short of the seriousness required for an Eighth Amendment violation. The court also declined to speculate about the unspecified privileges Mitchell allegedly lost. It dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim against McCloskey and Pauselius without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted Mitchell leave to file a second amended complaint by February 27, 2023. The defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by March 29, 2023. The opinion states that any claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice if Mitchell failed to file the second amended complaint by the deadline.