Stubbs v. Colby

Background

Cornelius Delmar Stubbs brought a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning his detention at Orange County Jail in February 2022. He alleged that correctional staff searched his cell and strip-searched him, removed personal property and legal materials including his Bible, denied him a shower for four days, and refused his request to call his lawyer. He also alleged that Sergeant E. Colby misrepresented the facts when deciding Stubbs’s grievance. Stubbs sought money damages.

The court had previously allowed Stubbs to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under federal prisoner-screening statutes, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fail to state a legally sufficient claim.

Claims the Court Allowed Stubbs to Amend

Strip searches. The court treated the allegations about three strip searches between February 7 and February 10, 2022, as possible Fourth Amendment claims. The complaint did not identify the officers, describe what happened during the searches, or clearly state that Stubbs sought relief for them. The court therefore granted leave to amend if Stubbs wished to pursue those claims, requiring him to identify the officers and provide facts about the searches. The court said he could use John or Jane Doe labels if he did not know an officer’s name.

Cell searches. The court held that the allegation that Stubbs’s cell was searched three times did not itself state a Fourth Amendment claim because the complaint did not allege that the searches were unrelated to jail security. The attached grievance materials indicated that officials believed there was dangerous contraband on the unit. The court granted leave to amend if Stubbs could allege facts showing that Defendant Muller searched the cell for reasons unrelated to security.

Religious materials. The court construed the confiscation of Stubbs’s Bible as possible claims under the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal statute protecting religious exercise by people in institutions. The complaint did not clearly state whether the Bible was ever returned, why Stubbs believed he could no longer receive his personal Bible, or how the confiscation affected his ability to practice his faith. The court granted leave to amend these claims.

Access to counsel. The court treated the allegation that staff refused a call to Stubbs’s lawyer as a possible Sixth Amendment claim. Stubbs did not explain why he needed the call, whether it concerned his criminal case, whether the denial continued, or how one denied call interfered with preparing his defense. The court granted leave to amend this claim with those facts.

Access to the courts. The court treated the confiscation of Stubbs’s legal papers as a possible First Amendment access-to-courts claim. Stubbs did not allege that the confiscation caused an injury in ongoing litigation. The court also noted that he alleged he had a lawyer, which could affect whether he was denied access to the courts. The court granted leave to amend if Stubbs could describe the underlying litigation, explain how the confiscation affected it, and state whether his lawyer represented him in that litigation.

Claims the Court Dismissed

Property. The court dismissed Stubbs’s federal claim concerning property that correctional staff allegedly failed to return, for failure to state a claim. It relied on the availability of state remedies, including an action in the New York Court of Claims and state-law claims for negligence, replevin, or conversion. Because those remedies were available, the alleged property deprivation did not support a federal due-process claim.

Grievance decision and claims against Colby. The court dismissed all claims against Defendant E. Colby for failure to state a claim. The court held that the Constitution does not require a prison grievance system or guarantee a particular grievance investigation or result. It concluded that Colby’s alleged misrepresentation in deciding Stubbs’s grievance did not deprive Stubbs of a constitutional right. The court stated that additional challenges to Colby’s decisions could be raised in state court.

Four-day shower denial. The court dismissed the conditions-of-confinement claim concerning the denial of a shower for four days. It concluded that the alleged condition did not pose an unreasonable risk to Stubbs’s health or safety and that the complaint did not show that any officer knew, or should have known, that the denial created an excessive risk. The court also noted that Colby’s grievance decision stated that staff complied with a New York standard requiring at least three showers per week in special housing.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Stubbs 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Stubbs must repeat any facts or claims he wishes to keep. The court instructed him to identify each defendant and describe each person’s actions, the relevant dates and locations, his injuries, and the relief requested. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that failure to file a timely amended complaint, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The court dismissed the claims against E. Colby, the federal property claim, and the four-day shower claim. It granted leave to amend the possible strip-search, cell-search, religious-exercise, access-to-counsel, and access-to-courts claims. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.