Colson v. Annucci

Background

Ronald R. Colson, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violations of constitutional rights. Colson alleged that defendants unlawfully searched him and provided a disciplinary hearing that did not follow required procedures. He proceeded without a lawyer and had previously been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

The defendants identified in the opinion included Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, Superintendent Michael Capra, several Sing Sing officers, and the State of New York. The court also directed the clerk to add Correction Officer Venettozzi as a defendant because Colson listed him in the complaint even though he was not included in the caption.

Dismissed Claims

The court dismissed Colson’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York. The court explained that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states from lawsuits in federal court unless the state has waived that protection or Congress has removed it. The court found that New York had not waived its protection and that Congress had not removed it for § 1983 claims. Because the claims sought monetary relief from an immune defendant, the court dismissed the claims against New York.

The court also dismissed the claims against Commissioner Annucci for failure to state a claim. Colson alleged that Annucci was a supervisor at the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s headquarters, but he did not allege facts showing how Annucci was personally involved in the events at issue. The court explained that a supervisor cannot be held liable merely because someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s rights worked under the supervisor.

Claims Allowed to Proceed and Service

The court did not dismiss the claims against Superintendent Capra or Officers Sanchez, Beadle, Green, Ross, Ortiz, Manuel, and Venettozzi at this stage. It directed the clerk to issue summonses and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those defendants.

The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service does not occur within that period, Colson should request additional time. The court also instructed Colson to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Other Directions

The court stated that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner case. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to specified standard discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

The court informed Colson about the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases. The clinic is not part of the court, and the order did not appoint the clinic as Colson’s attorney.

Disposition

The court dismissed Colson’s claims against the State of New York and Commissioner Annucci, added Correction Officer Venettozzi as a defendant, and ordered service on Capra, Sanchez, Beadle, Green, Ross, Ortiz, Manuel, and Venettozzi. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.