Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiff Alex Anselmo, a state prison inmate, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising at Clinton Correctional Facility.
- Original complaint alleged excessive force and failure-to-protect claims and equal protection claims against several correctional officers (Bressette, Lavarnway, McIntyre, Boulrice, Cassidy, Bell) and supervisory officials (Kirkpatrick, Zerniak, Keysor); some defendants/claims were previously dismissed without prejudice.
- Plaintiff amended the complaint: he withdrew claims against Aubin and Wood and added allegations that he wrote Superintendent Kirkpatrick on August 26, 2017 reporting harassment, property deprivation, and a false misbehavior report; Kirkpatrick referred the letter to Zerniak and Keysor but no further action followed.
- Plaintiff alleged officials knew inmates with sex-offense convictions (like him) are socially vulnerable and that corrections staff had used force after a recent escape, creating a risk to his safety.
- The Court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b); it dismissed the failure-to-protect claims against Kirkpatrick, Zerniak, and Keysor for failure to state a claim, but allowed to proceed: (1) excessive force and failure-to-protect claims, and (2) equal protection claims against the officer-defendants (Bressette, Lavarnway, McIntyre, Boulrice, Cassidy, Bell).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervisory defendants (Kirkpatrick, Zerniak, Keysor) can be held liable for failure to protect after plaintiff's written complaint | Anselmo says he informed Kirkpatrick of harassment, deprivation, and risk and requested intervention; referral to Zerniak/Keysor was inadequate | Supervisors argue the letter raised only generalized, non-imminent concerns and they lacked actual knowledge of a substantial risk to plaintiff | Dismissed: allegations showed only generalized harassment and property loss, not facts showing an objectively substantial risk or that supervisors had actual knowledge (failure to state claim) |
| Whether Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect/excessive force claims against officer-defendants survive screening | Anselmo alleges officers used excessive force, failed to protect him, and discriminated due to his sex-offense status | Defendants previously argued (implicitly via screening) claims insufficient; factual disputes and need for response | Survived screening: the Court again found these claims plausible enough to require a response from Bressette, Lavarnway, McIntyre, Boulrice, Cassidy, Bell |
| Whether Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims against officer-defendants survive screening | Anselmo alleges officers targeted him because of his status as a sex-offense inmate (class-based animus) | Defendants argue insufficient pleading for equal protection discrimination | Survived screening: equal protection claims against the same officers remain and require a response |
| Whether official-capacity monetary claims and other dismissed claims should be retained | Anselmo seeks damages from officials | Defendants contend official-capacity monetary claims are barred; other claims lack sufficient factual support | Dismissed with prejudice: official-capacity monetary claims and other inadequately pleaded claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (Eighth Amendment prisoner conditions framework)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference standard in prison medical/conditions context)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (Eighth Amendment standards on cruel and unusual punishment)
- Blyden v. Mancusi, 186 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 1999) (excessive-force standard and malicious use of force)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (excessive force inquiry: malicious/sadistic vs good-faith discipline)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (failure-to-protect: objective substantial risk and subjective deliberate indifference)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards and limits on supervisory liability)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (factors for supervisory liability in the Second Circuit)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (excessive force analysis in prison context)