Gunn v. Malani

Background

Darrell Gunn, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Correction Officer T. Malani under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Gunn alleged that, during a June 2017 cell move at Green Haven Correctional Facility, the officer took, lost, or damaged his property and placed him in keep lock after referring to Gunn’s practice of filing grievances. Gunn alleged that the keep-lock placement caused him to miss a law-library callout and court deadlines. He sought monetary damages and an injunction.

The defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which address subject-matter jurisdiction and whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The opinion notes that the defendant’s name appears in the caption as “T. Malani,” while the defendant stated that the proper spelling is “Milani.”

Claims and rulings

Loss or damage to property. The court dismissed this claim. It held that the alleged loss or damage to Gunn’s property could not support a federal due-process claim under § 1983 because New York provides an adequate remedy after the deprivation, including a possible action in the state Court of Claims. The court later stated that this claim was dismissed with prejudice because this was the second adjudication of Gunn’s claims on the merits.

Access to the law library and courts. The court dismissed this claim with prejudice. Gunn alleged that missing a library callout caused him to miss deadlines in a federal case and a New York Court of Claims matter. As to the federal case, the court found the alleged injury implausible because the case number showed that the case was filed at least 18 months after the events involving the defendant. As to the Court of Claims matter, Gunn adequately alleged an injury because he claimed that he missed a filing deadline and was not allowed to file late. But he did not plausibly allege that the defendant acted deliberately and maliciously to interfere with that case. The court therefore dismissed the access claim.

Retaliation for filing grievances. The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim. Gunn alleged that filing prison grievances was protected activity and that the defendant responded by taking his property, placing him in keep lock, and interfering with his law-library access. The court found that keep lock could qualify as an adverse action and that the defendant’s statements referring to Gunn’s grievances, together with the timing of a recent grievance, supported an inference of retaliation at the pleading stage. The court acknowledged that the issue was close, including because Gunn had not previously filed a grievance against this defendant and the defendant was not implicated in the earlier grievance. Nevertheless, viewing the allegations in Gunn’s favor, the court found the retaliation claim sufficiently pleaded.

Official-capacity claims and qualified immunity. The court held that claims for damages against the defendant in his official capacity were barred by state immunity and dismissed all such official-capacity claims. It rejected qualified immunity at this stage because the court had found that Gunn adequately stated a retaliation claim and the right to file grievances without retaliation was clearly established.

Physical-injury defense. The defendant argued that a federal law barred Gunn from seeking damages because Gunn alleged emotional and mental injuries but no physical injury. The court rejected that argument as to the surviving retaliation claim. It held that the physical-injury restriction did not bar damages for the First Amendment violation itself and did not bar punitive damages. The court therefore denied the defendant’s request to eliminate monetary damages.

Injunctive relief. The court denied Gunn’s request for a permanent injunction. Gunn alleged only a past incident and did not allege a likelihood of future or continuing retaliation, so he lacked standing to seek prospective injunctive relief.

Fee-waiver status. The defendant asked the court to revoke Gunn’s status allowing him to proceed without paying filing fees because of the federal prisoner-litigation “three strikes” rule. The court denied that request. It found that two of the cited dismissals occurred only after Gunn filed this action and therefore could not count as strikes when this case was filed.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It denied the motion as to the First Amendment retaliation claim. It granted the motion as to the lost-property and access-to-courts claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice. It also denied Gunn’s request for injunctive relief, denied the request to eliminate monetary damages based on the lack of physical injury, and denied the request to revoke Gunn’s fee-waiver status. The court scheduled a status conference for May 1, 2023.