Hamlett v. Everly

Background

John Hamlett, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal constitutional rights. He alleged that correctional officers retaliated against him for filing grievances, used excessive force, failed to protect him from Everly, and participated in or failed to provide adequate medical care after an alleged assault. He also alleged that Marilyn Kopp violated his due-process rights during a disciplinary hearing and that Donald Venettozzi violated due process by affirming Kopp’s decision.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Hamlett cross-moved for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Hamlett plausibly alleged retaliation by Everly. Filing prison grievances is constitutionally protected conduct, and the alleged assault, false disciplinary report, and theft of items could qualify as adverse actions. The allegations that another inmate told Everly about Hamlett’s grievances, that Everly asked Hamlett whether he “liked filing grievances,” and that the events occurred close in time were sufficient at the pleading stage to support an inference that Everly acted because of the grievances. The retaliation claims against Christopher J. Dillon, Gary J. Perrotta, Jr., Antonio M. Alban, Thomas A. Germano, Jr., and Richard T. Flanagan were dismissed because Hamlett alleged no specific facts showing that those defendants knew about the grievances or were motivated by them.

The court dismissed the failure-to-protect claims against Michel Blot, Jr., Michael D. Funk, and Sergeant Johanamann. Although Hamlett alleged that he warned them about Everly’s conduct, the court found that the allegations described fear of theft and harassment rather than a sufficiently specific, substantial risk of serious physical harm that these defendants knew about and disregarded.

The court also dismissed the deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claims against Nurse D. Heitz and Dr. Edwin Uzu. The court treated the alleged concussion, memory loss, and migraines as an objectively serious medical need, but found that Hamlett did not allege facts showing that Heitz or Uzu knew he had suffered a serious concussion and deliberately or recklessly refused appropriate treatment. The court dismissed the due-process claim against Venettozzi because merely affirming the result of Kopp’s disciplinary hearing did not show Venettozzi’s personal involvement in a constitutional violation.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied Hamlett’s request to file a second amended complaint because the proposed amendments did not cure the pleading problems. The proposed complaint still lacked specific facts about the other officers’ retaliatory motives, did not adequately allege that Blot, Funk, and Johanamann knew of a substantial safety risk, did not show that Heitz and Uzu knew of a serious concussion, and relied on Venettozzi’s affirmance of the hearing decision as the basis for his involvement.

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court denied dismissal of Hamlett’s retaliation claim against Everly and granted dismissal in all other respects. The court denied Hamlett’s cross-motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The claims dismissed by the order were dismissed with prejudice. The surviving claims were the excessive-force claims against Everly, Dillon, Perrotta, Alban, T. Germano, and Flanagan; the retaliation claim against Everly; and the due-process claim against Kopp. The court directed the parties to submit a case-management and scheduling plan for those remaining claims.