Branch v. Annucci

Background

Walter Branch filed this self-represented action alleging that Anthony J. Annucci, Na-Kia Walton, Jason Gibson, and Heidi Lewis failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his severe hearing impairment while he was incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Facility. Branch alleged that Gibson and Lewis refused to provide headphones and other necessary items, and that Walton failed to investigate his complaints or ensure enforcement of the Clarkson Consent Decree and New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive 2612.

The Clarkson Consent Decree requires accommodations, auxiliary aids, services, and assistive devices for deaf and hard-of-hearing incarcerated people, including during administrative, grievance, and disciplinary proceedings. Branch sought expungement of disciplinary records, return of surcharge money, accommodations at Eastern Correctional and any other facility where he might be sent, payment of the costs of the action, and $10 for each day he was confined under each disciplinary action.

The court had previously denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and construed Branch’s complaint as a motion for civil contempt under the consent decree. Civil contempt is a court remedy intended to compel compliance with an existing order. To obtain it, Branch had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the order was clear, that defendants failed to comply, and that they had not reasonably attempted to comply.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Branch’s request for accommodations was moot because he was no longer incarcerated at Eastern Correctional or, to the court’s knowledge, at another facility. Defendants had reported that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision website indicated Branch was released on parole in August 2022. The court therefore denied his claims for equitable relief as moot.

The court also denied Branch’s requests for damages and other relief related to his disciplinary proceedings. A declaration stated that Branch had participated in more than thirty disciplinary proceedings at several facilities and that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision could not investigate each hearing to determine whether accommodations had been requested or provided. Although Branch had submitted complaints concerning issues under the consent decree, the complaints did not identify accommodations allegedly denied during disciplinary hearings. A defendant also stated that Branch had not complained to him about failure to provide requested accommodations during those hearings.

The opinion notes that Branch had complained about not receiving free headphones in his housing and recreation areas. Department officials initially treated headphones as available for purchase, but the Department later determined that this interpretation was incorrect and that headphones should be issued free of charge to qualifying hard-of-hearing incarcerated people when requested as reasonable accommodations. The Department later provided Branch with headphones. The court nevertheless concluded that the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that defendants violated the consent decree in connection with Branch’s disciplinary proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Branch’s contempt motion. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state that the court separately dismissed the action.