Adams v. Annucci

Background

Jerry Adams, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Anthony Annucci and Ann Marie T. Sullivan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Adams alleged that the defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by designating him as a sex offender and violated the First Amendment by sanctioning him after he refused to participate in a Sex Offender Counseling and Treatment Program. The remaining claims were described as: (1) a “stigma plus” claim based on the sex-offender designation; (2) a due-process claim based on that designation; and (3) a retaliation claim based on alleged changes to his employment, pay, and housing.

Adams entered the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision system in 1989 after convictions including First-Degree Sodomy. In 2012, the Office of Mental Health’s Sex Offender Evaluation Unit assessed him and determined that he needed low-risk sex-offender programming. In June 2016, he refused an instruction to attend the treatment program. He later agreed to attend and was transferred to another correctional facility because residential treatment was not available at his original facility. He was discharged from the program in October 2016 for minimal to no participation in program tasks.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a prisoner to properly use available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. Adams filed and fully appealed a grievance concerning his participation in the treatment program. The court held that his appeal to the Central Office Review Committee properly included his argument that he had not received the assessment required by New York Correction Law § 622. The court found no prohibition in the applicable prison directive against adding arguments on appeal, and the Central Office Review Committee addressed those arguments.

The court held that Adams had exhausted his due-process and “stigma plus” claims. Reading his grievance liberally, the court found that his statements about being assigned to treatment without an assessment, his criminal record, and his claim of innocence could notify prison officials that he believed he had been improperly designated as a sex offender.

The court reached a different conclusion about retaliation. Although Adams’s grievance mentioned sanctions involving the possible loss of good-time credits, it did not mention the loss of work, pay, or housing that formed the retaliation claim remaining in the case. Because the grievance did not give prison officials enough information to investigate those alleged injuries, the court held that Adams had not exhausted the retaliation claim. The court also found no evidence that the grievance process was unavailable to him.

Personal involvement and the merits

A person may be liable under § 1983 only for constitutional violations in which that person was personally involved. The court held that Adams presented no evidence that Annucci or Sullivan personally participated in his designation as a sex offender. The court also found that Adams’s assertions that the defendants conspired to avoid assessments and that Annucci created an unlawful program were conclusory and unsupported by evidence. Sending a letter to Annucci, which was referred to a subordinate commissioner, did not by itself establish personal involvement.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed all remaining claims, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and closed the case. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.