Latimer v. Royce

Background

Corey A. Latimer, Sr., proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought a civil-rights action under Section 1983 against New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Commissioner Anthony Annucci, Green Haven Correctional Facility Sergeants Rosita Rossy and David Mazella, and Green Haven Correctional Facility. The sergeants were sued in their individual capacities. Latimer alleged that Rossy and Mazella violated the Eighth Amendment by confiscating his surgical face mask in the Green Haven mess hall on April 14, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Latimer worked in Green Haven’s medical unit and said a nurse had given him a surgical mask, which he wore for protection. Rossy and Mazella confiscated it because they believed incarcerated people were not permitted to wear that type of mask outside the medical clinic. Commissioner Annucci had issued an April 9, 2020 memorandum stating that incarcerated people would be issued three handkerchiefs and could voluntarily use a state-issued handkerchief as a cloth face covering.

Latimer claimed that he had asthma, was over 50, and spent much of his day without a mask after the confiscation. He also alleged that he tested positive for COVID-19 on July 19, 2020, and that Green Haven later required incarcerated people to wear masks like the one taken from him. The opinion states that Latimer filed a grievance, which was denied, but that the outcome of his appeal remained unclear.

Legal standard

The court considered the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view disputed facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but that party must provide evidence that could support a verdict in his favor.

To prove an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison conditions, an incarcerated person must show both an objectively serious risk to health or safety and that the officials had a sufficiently blameworthy state of mind. For a deliberate-indifference claim, the official must know about and disregard an excessive risk; negligence alone is not enough.

Court’s analysis

The court did not decide whether Latimer had shown an objectively serious risk, and it did not address the defendants’ arguments about causation, injury, or Commissioner Annucci’s personal involvement. Instead, it decided that Latimer had not produced evidence satisfying the required state-of-mind element.

The court found no evidence that Annucci, Rossy, or Mazella intentionally imposed the alleged harmful conditions or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to reduce the COVID-19 risk. It regarded Annucci’s mask memorandum as a reasonable response informed by then-current guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the New York State Department of Health. The court stated that an imperfect or negligent response was not enough to establish deliberate indifference.

The court also found no evidence that Annucci knew the preventive measures were not being followed, even assuming Rossy and Mazella failed to follow Green Haven’s policies. The record suggested that Rossy and Mazella believed they were required to confiscate the surgical mask. Latimer did not show that they knew about his asthma, knew that he lacked access to a cloth handkerchief, or knew in April 2020 about the increased COVID-19 risk for people over 50 in a way that would establish deliberate disregard of a serious risk.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion and close the case. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Latimer permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.