Dr. Muhammad v. Annucci

Background

Dr. Muhammad, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Anthony J. Annucci, William Keyser, Gary Sipple, Sergeant Rohan, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. He brought claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985–1986, and New York common law.

Dr. Muhammad alleged that he has a physically impaired right leg and needs a cane. On December 9, 2017, he tried to visit an inmate at Sullivan Correctional Facility while carrying a handmade walking cane. He alleged that Sergeant Rohan would not allow him to use that cane, refused to provide a substitute prison-approved cane, refused to contact superiors, and refused to read a letter from Dr. Muhammad’s doctor. Dr. Muhammad also alleged that the conduct was motivated by racial and religious hostility and caused migraine headaches and depression.

Procedural history and standards

The defendants previously moved to dismiss the original complaint. On March 19, 2020, the court dismissed that complaint but allowed amendment of claims for money damages and equitable relief concerning Sergeant Rohan’s conduct. The court had already dismissed claims against Annucci, Keyser, and Sipple in their entirety on grounds including the limits of disability-law damages and individual-capacity claims.

Magistrate Judge Ona Wang later recommended dismissing the first amended complaint with prejudice and denying further leave to amend. No party objected. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and adopted it after finding none.

Reasons for dismissal

Insufficient service of process. Under Rule 12(b)(5), a defendant may seek dismissal when the plaintiff has not properly delivered the summons and complaint. The court held that Dr. Muhammad’s hand delivery of five copies of the complaint to Jasmine Hughes, a clerk in the New York State Attorney General’s Office, did not satisfy the federal or New York service requirements. The opinion states that Hughes was not a defendant, a resident at a defendant’s home, or an authorized agent, and was not an official authorized to accept service for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The court concluded that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants and adopted the recommendation to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(2). It also held that Dr. Muhammad was not entitled to another extension to correct the service defects.

Lack of standing for equitable relief. The court separately held that Dr. Muhammad lacked constitutional standing to seek equitable relief, such as an order requiring future conduct. The court explained that a past injury alone was not enough; he had to allege a likelihood of future harm and an official policy or equivalent practice. The court found that he did not allege facts showing likely future harm or even an intention to visit the facility again. It therefore dismissed his equitable-relief claims under Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Failure to state a claim for money damages. The court also held that the amended complaint did not adequately plead claims for monetary relief under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim. Regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court stated that Dr. Muhammad had not alleged facts showing that Sergeant Rohan’s refusal to provide a substitute cane was motivated by hostility or ill will based on disability. The court also found that his conclusory allegations did not satisfy an alternative disability-law standard requiring the alleged disability violation to also violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court further concluded that the allegations did not plausibly connect the refusal to allow the handmade cane or provide a substitute to racial or religious discrimination. It held that the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims therefore failed the plausibility requirement. The opinion’s footnote also states that New York Correction Law § 24 barred the state common-law negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against the individual defendants outside the New York Court of Claims; alternatively, the allegations were insufficient for those claims.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s report. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted with prejudice and without leave to further amend. The clerk was directed to close the motion and the action.