Valde-Cruz v. Russo

Background

Leonardo Valde-Cruz, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Anthony Russo and correctional officers Gregory Reyes, Robert Stark, and Othello Coleman. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and state law concerning two attacks by another incarcerated person and a fire in his cell. The second amended complaint repeated the earlier allegations and added claims concerning a July 2020 cell fire and property that was allegedly damaged or removed.

Russo moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The correctional-officer defendants had not been served or appeared and did not join Russo’s motion.

Rulings on the Federal Claims

The court applied its reasoning from its 2022 opinion to the allegations that were identical to the earlier complaint and dismissed those claims for the same reasons.

For claims against Russo in his official capacity, the court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred claims for monetary damages. It also dismissed claims seeking declaratory relief because Valde-Cruz alleged only past misconduct, not an ongoing or likely-to-recur violation.

For claims against Russo in his individual capacity, the court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act required Valde-Cruz to exhaust available prison grievance procedures before filing suit. Valde-Cruz stated that he had filed no grievances. The property claim form he filed was not part of the required three-step grievance process. The court found no plausible allegation that prison officials had prevented or thwarted him from using that process. It also concluded that the alleged failure-to-protect and property claims could be raised through the grievance system.

The court stated that the exhaustion failure required dismissal without prejudice at the analysis stage, meaning the claims could ordinarily be brought again after exhaustion. However, in its conclusion, the court stated that this was the second adjudication of the claims against Russo and dismissed those claims with prejudice.

The court further held that the property-deprivation claim failed independently. New York provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy, including an action in the New York Court of Claims, and Valde-Cruz did not allege that such remedies were unavailable. In addition, he alleged that a non-defendant correctional officer and unnamed individuals removed the property, without alleging facts showing Russo’s personal involvement. The court therefore dismissed the property claim for failure to state a claim as well.

State-Law Claims

The court held that New York Correction Law § 24 barred state-law damages claims against Russo in his personal capacity for conduct within the scope of his employment. It also stated that there is no private claim under the New York Constitution when § 1983 provides an available remedy. The motion was therefore granted as to all state-law claims asserted against Russo.

Disposition

The court granted Russo’s motion in full and dismissed Valde-Cruz’s claims against Russo with prejudice. Although the correctional-officer defendants had not joined the motion or appeared, the court found that dismissal of the claims against them was also proper under the stated grounds. It did not enter the same final dismissal as to those defendants at that point; instead, it gave Valde-Cruz 30 days to explain why his claims against the remaining defendants should not also be dismissed.