Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Anthony Amaker, a Nation of Islam adherent, sued multiple Green Haven prison officials under § 1983 and RLUIPA alleging denial of religious services, deprivation of Ramadan-compliant meals, retaliatory misbehavior reports and transfers, improper searches/strip-search procedures, and interference with legal mail and law-library access.
- Key incidents: denial of attendance at religious services (April 2013); disputes over state-issued clothing and boots; Ramadan meal preparation disputes with cook Elmanakhey (July 2013); removal from mess hall and misbehavior reports leading to 30 days keeplock; lockdown strip-search requiring use of a BOSS chair in front of female officers (Dec. 10, 2013).
- Plaintiff filed grievances; the court found he exhausted the grievance about religious-services denial but failed to exhaust the state-underwear grievance.
- The court applied the personal-involvement requirement to § 1983 and, following Colon and related authority, dismissed many defendants for lack of plausible personal involvement; it preserved claims against Burzo, Hoiston, and Lieberman (mess-hall removal/retaliation) and some others directly implicated in conduct.
- Court dismissed claims for: free-exercise challenges to clothing/boots and isolated meal incidents; RLUIPA claims arising from the BOSS/strip-search; Eighth Amendment strip-search claims; retaliation and access-to-courts claims for lack of nonconclusory causation or attributable defendant involvement; and due-process claim from 30-day keeplock (not an atypical hardship).
- Court denied qualified-immunity dismissal for the surviving free-exercise/RLUIPA claim (removal from mess hall) and revoked Amaker’s IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (three-strikes).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion under PLRA | Amaker says he followed grievance procedures; some grievances went unanswered or were dead-ended. | Defendants argue many claims (e.g., underwear grievance) were not exhausted. | Partial: religious-services grievance plausibly exhausted; underwear grievance not exhausted. |
| Personal involvement for § 1983/RLUIPA liability | Amaker alleges many named officials were responsible for policies or acts harming him. | Defendants say most named officials lack any factual allegations showing personal involvement. | Court dismissed many defendants for lack of personal involvement; preserved claims against those directly implicated (e.g., Bucolo, Elmanakhey, Burzo, Hoiston, Lieberman, Erns, Kuntz, Lee, Melville, Carey, O’Connors). |
| Free Exercise / RLUIPA claim (Ramadan removal & meals) | Amaker alleges removal from mess hall before breaking fast and denial of religious meals burdened his exercise; seeks relief under First Amendment and RLUIPA. | Defendants contend policies (clothing, boots, routine actions) served penological interests and that isolated incidents and available hygiene options negate substantial burden. | Court: pleaded plausible Free Exercise and RLUIPA claim as to removal from mess hall (substantial burden); other religious claims (boots, isolated meal incidents) dismissed. |
| Qualified immunity | Amaker: defendants violated clearly established religious rights. | Defendants: discretionary officials entitled to immunity. | Denied at motion-to-dismiss stage for surviving defendants; defendants failed to show on the face of the complaint that qualified immunity applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standards for pleading plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; legal conclusions vs. factual allegations)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (when administrative remedies are functionally unavailable under PLRA)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (criteria for supervisory personal involvement under § 1983)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (prisoner free-exercise analysis and limits on rights in incarceration)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (standing and actual injury requirement for access-to-courts claims)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)