UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEVIN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-10614 (LTS) ORANGE COUNTY JAIL ADMINISTRATION/OFFICERS; CAPTAIN ORDER TO AMEND POTTER; LT. BURLINSKI; SRG. PROCIA; SRG. KITSZLCA; OFFICER WETZEL; OFFICER CZHUBAK; TOWN OF GOSHEN, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who was incarcerated in the Orange County Jail, brings this action pro se, alleging that Defendants violated his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights.1 By order dated April 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).2 For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
1 On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter to inform the Court that he has been released and to update his mailing address. (ECF No. 5.) 2 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to
construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the
Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Devin Williams brings this complaint against the town of Goshen, and administrators and officers of the Orange County Jail. He alleges that, for over ten months in 2020, Defendants denied him the right to communicate with his co-defendants, based on a “false excuse that NY state has made a mandated Executive Order to keep co-defendants apart.” (ECF
No.1 at 5.) Plaintiff asserts that this restriction of communication violated his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION A. First Amendment Claim Plaintiff’s claim that he was not allowed to communicate with his co-defendants fails to state a claim. “A prison inmate . . . retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.” Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Giano v. Senkowski, 54 F.3d 1050, 1053 (2d Cir. 1995)). Although “[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution,” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407
(1989) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), those protections are of a limited scope in view of the “inordinately difficult” modern prison administration, id. Challenges to the constitutionality of prison regulations must be assessed in the light of legitimate penal objectives. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 823 (1974). The Supreme Court listed four factors that a court must consider in determining whether a prison regulation impinging on an inmate’s constitutional rights is permissible: (1) whether there is a rational connection between the challenged restriction and the legitimate governmental interest used to justify it; (2) whether alternative avenues of exercising the right remain open to the inmate; (3) whether accommodation of the right will have an adverse impact on guards, other inmates, and allocation of prison resources generally; and (4) whether obvious, easy alternatives to the restriction exist. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–90 (1987). Specifically, the Second Circuit held that revocation of an inmate’s privilege of correspondence with another inmate was
reasonably related to legitimate penological concerns and was therefore constitutional. Purnell v. Lord, 952 F.2d 679, 683 (2d Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court has held that a prison regulation restricting inmates’ direct communication with others is constitutional if inmates can communicate indirectly through their families, friends, clergy, or attorneys. Pell, 417 U.S. at 825. Here, Plaintiff’s mere allegation that he was not permitted to communicate with his co- defendants does not state a First Amendment claim. Given the plethora of legitimate penological concerns, such a claim is not “plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEVIN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-10614 (LTS) ORANGE COUNTY JAIL ADMINISTRATION/OFFICERS; CAPTAIN ORDER TO AMEND POTTER; LT. BURLINSKI; SRG. PROCIA; SRG. KITSZLCA; OFFICER WETZEL; OFFICER CZHUBAK; TOWN OF GOSHEN, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who was incarcerated in the Orange County Jail, brings this action pro se, alleging that Defendants violated his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights.1 By order dated April 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).2 For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
1 On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter to inform the Court that he has been released and to update his mailing address. (ECF No. 5.) 2 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to
construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the
Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Devin Williams brings this complaint against the town of Goshen, and administrators and officers of the Orange County Jail. He alleges that, for over ten months in 2020, Defendants denied him the right to communicate with his co-defendants, based on a “false excuse that NY state has made a mandated Executive Order to keep co-defendants apart.” (ECF
No.1 at 5.) Plaintiff asserts that this restriction of communication violated his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION A. First Amendment Claim Plaintiff’s claim that he was not allowed to communicate with his co-defendants fails to state a claim. “A prison inmate . . . retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.” Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Giano v. Senkowski, 54 F.3d 1050, 1053 (2d Cir. 1995)). Although “[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution,” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407
(1989) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), those protections are of a limited scope in view of the “inordinately difficult” modern prison administration, id. Challenges to the constitutionality of prison regulations must be assessed in the light of legitimate penal objectives. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 823 (1974). The Supreme Court listed four factors that a court must consider in determining whether a prison regulation impinging on an inmate’s constitutional rights is permissible: (1) whether there is a rational connection between the challenged restriction and the legitimate governmental interest used to justify it; (2) whether alternative avenues of exercising the right remain open to the inmate; (3) whether accommodation of the right will have an adverse impact on guards, other inmates, and allocation of prison resources generally; and (4) whether obvious, easy alternatives to the restriction exist. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–90 (1987). Specifically, the Second Circuit held that revocation of an inmate’s privilege of correspondence with another inmate was
reasonably related to legitimate penological concerns and was therefore constitutional. Purnell v. Lord, 952 F.2d 679, 683 (2d Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court has held that a prison regulation restricting inmates’ direct communication with others is constitutional if inmates can communicate indirectly through their families, friends, clergy, or attorneys. Pell, 417 U.S. at 825. Here, Plaintiff’s mere allegation that he was not permitted to communicate with his co- defendants does not state a First Amendment claim. Given the plethora of legitimate penological concerns, such a claim is not “plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that he was deprived of indirect means of communication with his co- defendants. He thus does not allow the Court to draw “the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
B. Leave to Amend Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid First Amendment claim, the Court grants Plaintiff sixty days’ leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims.3 Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to provide additional facts in support of his claim. In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must
provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include: a) the names and titles of all relevant people; b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred; c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief. Essentially, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint.
3 The facts as alleged by Plaintiff are insufficient to state claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. These claims must therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). CONCLUSION Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 20-CV-10614 (LTS). An Amended Civil Rights
Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2021 New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CV TT (clu ber if has b Write the full name of each plaintiff. ened) nummer troneines seen
-against- AMENDED
COMPLAINT □□ Do you want a jury trial? [(1Yes (CINo
Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more space, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section Il.
NOTICE The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.
Rev. 2/10/17
I. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a case in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation, and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, is a diversity case. In a diversity case, no defendant may be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff. What is the basis for federal-court jurisdiction in your case? [] Federal Question L] Diversity of Citizenship A. If you checked Federal Question Which of your federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated?
B. If you checked Diversity of Citizenship 1. Citizenship of the parties Of what State is each party a citizen? The plaintiff , ,is a citizen of the State of (Plaintiffs name)
(State in which the person resides and intends to remain.) or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or subject of the foreign state of
If more than one plaintiff is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing information for each additional plaintiff.
Page 2
If the defendant is an individual:
The defendant, , is a citizen of the State of (Defendant’s name)
or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or subject of the foreign state of . If the defendant is a corporation: The defendant, , is incorporated under the laws of the State of and has its principal place of business in the State of or is incorporated under the laws of (foreign state) and has its principal place of business in . If more than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing information for each additional defendant.
II. PARTIES A. Plaintiff Information Provide the following information for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional pages if needed.
First Name Middle Initial Last Name
Street Address
County, City State Zip Code
Telephone Number Email Address (if available) B. Defendant Information To the best of your ability, provide addresses where each defendant may be served. If the correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are the same as those listed in the caption. Attach additional pages if needed. Defendant 1: First Name Last Name
Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 2: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 3: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 4: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Place(s) of occurrence:
Date(s) of occurrence: FACTS: State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were harmed, and what each defendant personally did or failed to do that harmed you. Attach additional pages if needed. INJURIES: If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical treatment, if any, you required and received.
IV. RELIEF State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order. V. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. I agree to notify the Clerk's Office in writing of any changes to my mailing address. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case.
Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.
Dated Plaintiff's Signature
Telephone Number Email Address (if available)
I have read the Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically: OlYes If you do consent to receive documents electronically, submit the completed form with your complaint. If you do not consent, please do not attach the form.
Page 7