Smith v. The State of New York

Background

Osmondo Dwayne Smith, who was incarcerated at Coxsackie Correctional Facility, brought this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events at Green Haven Correctional Facility. He named the State of New York, Superintendent Miller, and an individual identified in the caption as “INDIVUDUAL ON AUDIO & VIDEO.” He sought money damages.

Smith’s amended complaint and attachments referred to remarks by correction officers concerning his sexual orientation, alleged discrimination, possible retaliation for filing prison grievances, cell searches, and other conduct. The court said the complaint and attachments were difficult to understand and did not clearly identify the events, conduct, injuries, or defendants supporting each claim.

Screening and leave to amend

Because Smith was incarcerated and had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief. In light of Smith’s self-represented status, the court granted him 60 days to file a second amended complaint.

The court treated Smith’s request for permission to file the amended complaint as unnecessary and denied that request because he was permitted to amend once before service as a matter of course. The court accepted the amended complaint for filing but required the second amended complaint to replace it completely rather than supplement it.

Possible constitutional claims

The court understood Smith to possibly be asserting a claim that correction officers were deliberately indifferent to his safety by making remarks or spreading rumors about his sexual orientation. Verbal harassment, threats, or profanity alone generally do not violate a federally protected right. But the court explained that deliberately spreading rumors about an incarcerated person’s actual or perceived homosexuality may support a constitutional claim if the allegations show a significant or imminent risk of physical harm and that officials knew of and disregarded that risk.

The court found that Smith had not alleged facts showing physical injury, an imminent threat of physical injury, or that any individual defendant knew about and disregarded a serious safety risk. The court therefore found no viable deliberate-indifference claim in the existing pleading, but granted Smith leave to add facts supporting such a claim and to identify the individual correction officers involved.

The court also understood Smith to possibly be asserting First Amendment retaliation based on prison grievances. Such a claim requires facts showing protected activity, adverse action, and a causal connection between the two. The court found that Smith did not allege enough facts connecting his grievances to the alleged searches or other retaliatory conduct. It granted him leave to add facts supporting a retaliation claim and to name the correction officers allegedly responsible.

Claims against the State of New York

The court dismissed Smith’s Section 1983 claims against the State of New York for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment. The court stated that New York had not waived its immunity from suit in federal court and that Congress had not removed that immunity through Section 1983.

Claim against Superintendent Miller

The court explained that a Section 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A supervisor cannot be held liable solely because someone else allegedly violated a person’s rights. The court found that Smith had not alleged how Superintendent Miller was personally involved. It instructed Smith that any second amended complaint naming Miller must include facts showing Miller’s direct and personal involvement.

State-law claims and required filing

The court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims because Smith was being allowed to amend his federal claims. It ordered Smith to submit a second amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, using the case number 23-CV-7613 (LTS), and stated that no summons would issue at that time. The court warned that if Smith did not comply and could not show good cause, the amended complaint would be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order and the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith permission to appeal without prepaying fees.