Granados v. New York State Dept. of Corr. Counsel Office

Background

Delia Granados, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York State Department of Corrections Counsel’s Office; Delta Barometre, identified as the superintendent of Otisville Correctional Facility; Officer I. Grecco; Sgt. Gaynor; and Sgt. Flesser. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged violations of federally protected rights arising from an August 29, 2021 visit with her boyfriend, who was incarcerated at Otisville.

According to the complaint, Grecco accused Granados of sexual misconduct involving the prisoner. Granados alleged that witnesses did not see misconduct, that Flesser falsified information, that Gaynor falsely described a medical search, that the Counsel’s Office misstated the date of her appeal, and that Barometre submitted inconsistent reports. She sought money damages and an order stopping the conduct that was allegedly causing harm, apparently referring to the suspension of her visitation rights. The complaint cited several federal and state provisions, including provisions concerning discovery, contempt, false records, and obstruction, but the opinion did not identify a specific federal cause of action that the court accepted as properly pleaded.

Earlier related proceedings

The opinion states that Granados had previously filed complaints arising from the same August 29, 2021 incident and its aftermath. In a prior related proceeding in this court, the court dismissed an amended complaint because it did not comply with federal pleading rules, the Eleventh Amendment barred claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and a state official, the complaint did not show the individual defendants’ personal involvement, and the alleged facts did not establish a procedural due-process claim.

The earlier court also held that Granados did not have a liberty or property interest in visiting her boyfriend and that, even if she had such an interest, she received all the process she was due through administrative and state-court proceedings. The court later dismissed her second amended complaint for the same reasons and denied leave to file a third amended complaint because amendment would be futile. A separate, substantially similar action had also been dismissed as duplicative and without prejudice to claims pending in the earlier related proceeding.

Screening standard

Because Granados was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any portion of it, if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, they still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and must comply with the requirement of a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Court’s reasoning

The court dismissed this complaint for the same reasons stated in the dismissal orders from the earlier related proceeding. It summarized those reasons as follows:

- The Eleventh Amendment barred Granados’s claims against the Department of Corrections Counsel’s Office. - The facts showed that Granados received the process due to her, so the alleged facts did not establish a due-process claim. - Granados did not provide facts showing that all of the individual defendants were personally involved in violating her constitutional rights.

The court concluded that these defects could not be cured by another amendment and therefore declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed Granados’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), the provisions concerning failure to state a claim and requests for money from an immune defendant. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Granados might seek to assert. The court warned that filing duplicative complaints could lead to an order requiring her to explain why she should not be barred from filing new fee-waived actions in this court concerning these events without prior permission.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. It directed the clerk to enter judgment.