Smith v. Miller

Background

Osmondo Dwayne Smith filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated, without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that prison officials interfered with or tampered with his mail while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The defendants named in the original complaint were Superintendent Miller and two unidentified mail-room employees.

In an order dated September 5, 2023, the court dismissed Smith’s claims against Superintendent Miller because the complaint did not allege facts showing Miller’s personal involvement. The court treated the complaint as asserting claims involving access to the courts and general mail tampering, and found that Smith had not alleged enough facts to state either claim. The court also dismissed claims based on the state corrections agency’s failure to respond to a grievance appeal, explaining that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a grievance procedure or an investigation of their grievances. The court allowed Smith to amend to allege a viable claim that officials impeded his access to the courts or tampered with his mail.

Smith’s Submission

Smith did not file an amended complaint within the original 60-day period. The court later received a nine-page letter with approximately 140 pages of attachments. The materials included multiple complaint forms, prison grievances, letters to state-court judges, and requests under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. Some documents referred to this case, while others referred to a separate action, No. 23-CV-7613 (LTS). The court explained that the two actions were not consolidated and that the newer action was independent.

The submission included allegations about missing or delayed mail, alleged mail-room tampering, art and other property, prison conditions, recordings, criminal-case matters, and other subjects. It also named different groups of defendants in different documents. The court could not determine clearly whether Smith intended the submission to serve as the amended complaint in this case.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that, even if it treated the submission as an amended complaint, it did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found that Smith’s submission contained multiple complaint forms with different defendants and allegations, extraneous and confusing information, and no clear statement of the specific events and conduct underlying the mail-tampering claims.

Because Smith was representing himself and the court could not say that further amendment would be futile, it granted another opportunity to amend rather than dismissing the action at this stage.

Order and Instructions

The court granted Smith 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be a single document, labeled an “Amended Complaint,” and marked with docket number 23-CV-5811 (LTS). It must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts for each claim and defendant, including the people involved, what each person did or failed to do, approximate dates and times, locations, injuries, and requested relief.

The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Smith must repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that he wants the court to consider. The court granted leave to amend only the mail-tampering claims. It stated that claims outside that limited scope will be summarily dismissed from this action without prejudice to refiling them as a new action. No summons issued at this time. If Smith does not comply within the allowed time and cannot show good cause for the failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.