Smith v. Miller
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 24
In Smith v. Miller, Judge Swain let Osmondo Dwayne Smith amend his prison-mail civil-rights complaint, dismissed grievance claims, and denied counsel without prejudice.
Osmondo Dwayne Smith, the self-represented incarcerated plaintiff, must amend his complaint within 60 days to pursue potential access-to-courts and mail-tampering claims. His grievance-response claims were dismissed, and his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice. Superintendent Miller and the two unidentified mail-room defendants remain potential defendants only if Smith alleges their personal involvement and viable claims.
What happened
In Smith v. Miller, Osmondo Dwayne Smith, representing himself, sued Green Haven Correctional Facility Superintendent Miller and two mail-room workers. He alleged that delays in sending legal mail interfered with his court proceedings and that returned mail was opened. He also alleged that officials failed to respond to his prison grievance appeal.
The court concluded that Smith had not provided enough facts to state claims about access to the courts or mail tampering, including facts showing deliberate conduct, actual legal injury, or an ongoing practice of unjustified interference. It dismissed his claims based on the delayed grievance response for failure to state a claim. The court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint addressing possible access-to-courts and mail-tampering claims, and it denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that any amended complaint replace the original and identify each defendant’s involvement. She warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to state a claim if Smith did not amend within the allowed time without showing good cause.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Miller · No. 1:23-cv-05811
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 5, 2023
Background
Osmondo Dwayne Smith, who was incarcerated at Coxsackie Correctional Facility when the order was issued, sued Green Haven Correctional Facility Superintendent Miller and two unidentified mail-room workers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that delays in processing outgoing legal mail interfered with his efforts to litigate a motion challenging his conviction in Bronx County Supreme Court. He also alleged that a letter returned as undeliverable had been opened before it was returned to him. Smith sought money damages and alleged that officials did not respond to his appeal of a prison grievance about mail processing.
The court reviewed the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s required screening process for prisoner complaints. The court had previously allowed Smith to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Claims Against Superintendent Miller
The court explained that a damages claim under Section 1983 requires facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Smith did not allege facts showing how Superintendent Miller was personally involved in the mail delays. The court stated that any amended complaint seeking claims against Miller must provide those facts.
Access to the Courts and Mail Tampering
The court treated Smith’s mail allegations as potential First Amendment claims involving access to the courts and mail tampering. For an access-to-courts claim, Smith needed to allege deliberate and malicious conduct and actual injury, such as the dismissal or impairment of an otherwise valid legal claim. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing deliberate or malicious conduct. The five-day delay in returning the letter appeared, at most, to suggest negligence. The court also found it unclear whether the alleged delays actually frustrated or hindered Smith’s motion challenging his conviction.
For a mail-tampering claim, Smith needed to allege an ongoing practice of unjustified censorship or interference that impaired his court access or legal representation. The court found that the single allegation that returned mail was opened was insufficient. The allegations of delayed mail also did not show an ongoing practice of unjustified censorship. The court granted Smith leave to amend to allege facts supporting potentially viable access-to-courts and mail-tampering claims.
Grievance-Procedure Claims
The court dismissed Smith’s claims based on officials’ failure to respond to his grievance appeal for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure, a particular investigation, or a response to a grievance. The court did not decide at that stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.
Request for Counsel
The court denied Smith’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later. It stated that the case was too early for the court to evaluate the merits sufficiently to decide whether counsel was warranted.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court granted Smith 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint, identify each defendant and that person’s involvement, describe the relevant events and injuries, and state the relief sought. If Smith failed to amend within the deadline and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court 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.
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.