Smith v. The State of New York

Background

Osmondo Dwayne Smith, who was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. He brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for constitutional violations.

Smith first filed a complaint and then filed amended pleadings. In an October 27, 2023 order, the court found that his first amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it contained confusing and extraneous information and did not include a short and plain statement showing that he was entitled to relief. The court had understood the pleading to assert claims that correction officers endangered Smith by spreading rumors about his sexuality and retaliated against him for filing prison grievances. The court had already dismissed claims against New York under Eleventh Amendment immunity and allowed Smith to file a second amended complaint concerning the correction officers’ alleged conduct.

Smith filed a second amended complaint on December 1, 2023. It named Green Haven Superintendent Miller and numerous named and unidentified correction officers and Department of Corrections and Community Supervision officials. The complaint described events at Green Haven Correctional Facility and possibly Coxsackie Correctional Facility, including alleged comments about Smith’s sexuality, possible retaliation, mail problems, stolen designs, and an altercation with another prisoner. Smith requested that the court review audio and video footage and award money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the second amended complaint did not cure the defects identified in the earlier order. It did not allege facts showing that Smith suffered physical injury or was threatened with imminent physical injury because of an officer’s comments about his sexual orientation. It also did not allege facts showing that an individual defendant knew about and disregarded a risk to Smith’s safety.

The court further found that the complaint did not allege facts suggesting that any defendant retaliated against Smith because he filed grievances. In addition, the court found that the series of largely incomprehensible allegations failed to satisfy Rule 8’s requirement that a complaint contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court therefore dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion also notes that some allegations appeared to concern mail tampering, but Smith had another action pending in the same court in which he asserted mail-tampering claims. The court stated that supporting facts could be included in an amended complaint in that prior related proceeding.

Other rulings and disposition

To the extent Smith intended to bring state-law claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them after dismissing the federal claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims; the court declined to use that authority here.

The court denied further leave to amend because Smith had already been given an opportunity to correct the pleading and the court found no indication that another amendment could cure the defects. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.