Lloyd v. Regisford

Background

Donell Lloyd, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against seven employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision: Hearing Officer Marcia Regisford, Sergeant Darryl Montgomery, Correction Officers Shaun Kerr, Miguel Malave, Henry Gutierrez, Williams, and Mowatt. Lloyd alleged that correctional officers attacked him on November 17, 2021, while he was returning to his cell at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. He alleged that officers struck him, including after he was handcuffed, and later assaulted him at a hospital. He also alleged injuries, inadequate access to medical care while in the facility infirmary, and restrictions on seeing people while he was there.

Regisford, Montgomery, and Kerr moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a claim. Malave and Gutierrez were later treated as moving parties. The court also considered the motion as applying to Williams and Mowatt, who had not yet been served, to avoid deciding the claims in separate proceedings. Lloyd did not file an opposition, so the court considered the motion unopposed but still reviewed whether the amended complaint legally stated claims.

Analysis

The defendants argued that Lloyd had not exhausted the prison grievance process required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court denied the motion to dismiss to the extent it relied on that argument. Failure to exhaust is generally an affirmative defense rather than something a prisoner must plead in the complaint, and the amended complaint did not make clear that Lloyd had failed to exhaust.

The defendants also argued that Lloyd had not alleged their personal involvement. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that each defendant personally participated in the constitutional violation through that defendant’s own actions. The court found that Lloyd described an assault by unidentified correctional officers but did not identify which named defendants participated. He also did not identify which defendants were involved in the alleged inadequate medical care or restrictions on visitation. Listing defendants in the caption and defendant list was not enough.

The court stated that identifying the people who directly participated in the alleged violations, or who failed to intervene in the alleged excessive force, could address the personal-involvement problem. The court did not reach the defendants’ remaining arguments.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for failure to allege that any defendant was personally involved in the events underlying Lloyd’s claims. Lloyd was given 30 days from the date of the Opinion and Order to file a second amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. A second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court stated that failing to file it on time may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Judge Philip M. Halpern certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lloyd permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.