Branch v. Annucci
1:20-cv-07968
S.D.N.Y.Feb 28, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Walter Branch, a severely hearing-impaired incarcerated person, sued DOCCS Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci and DOCCS staff alleging they failed to provide reasonable accommodations (e.g., headphones) from Feb 10, 2020 through filing (Sept. 2020), including during disciplinary proceedings at Eastern Correctional Facility.
- Branch asserts violations of the Clarkson consent decree and DOCCS Directive 2612 (policies governing accommodations for hearing‑impaired inmates).
- He seeks expungement of disciplinary dispositions (if accommodations cannot be shown), return of surcharge money, monetary compensation, and provision of accommodations going forward.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), (3), and (6) raising mootness, lack of personal involvement, failure to satisfy Rule 8, failure to state a claim, qualified immunity, and improper venue.
- The Court (Ramos, J.) denied the motion to dismiss, found the complaint gives sufficient notice under Rule 8 (given pro se liberality), and construed the complaint as a motion for contempt to enforce the Clarkson consent decree, allowing defendants to file a full opposition brief on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 8 sufficiency | Branch alleged timeframe, location, and denial of accommodations (headphones) giving notice | Complaint is too nonspecific to allow preparation for trial | Court (liberally reading pro se complaint) held allegations are sufficient; Rule 8 dismissal denied |
| Remedy/vehicle for Clarkson/Directive violations | Branch asserts Clarkson/Directive violations and requests damages/expungement | Defendants argue violations of directives/regulations do not create § 1983 causes of action and such claims should be raised as contempt before the issuing judge | Court held individuals may seek relief under Clarkson but enforcement in this posture should be treated as a contempt motion; court construed complaint as contempt motion and did not dismiss |
| Venue / ability to enforce consent decree | Branch brought suit in S.D.N.Y. where suit filed | Defendants suggested venue issues and that enforcement belongs before original consent‑decree judge | Court held it may enforce the consent decree and venue is appropriate to consider contempt here (citing authority that decree may be enforced outside the district) |
| Further briefing / consideration of extrinsic evidence | Branch filed complaint (pro se) seeking relief | Defendants sought ability to fully brief and submit materials outside 12(b)(6) record | Court permitted defendants to submit an opposition brief treating the complaint as a contempt motion and set briefing schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- Koch v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 699 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (pleadings: court may accept factual allegations as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Figueroa v. Dean, 425 F. Supp. 2d 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Describing Clarkson consent decree relief and permitting enforcement/contempt proceedings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely conceivable)
- Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1988) (Rule 8: complaint must give fair notice to enable defense and preparation)
- Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1994) (pro se filings are to be read liberally)
- United States v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 882 F.2d 656 (2d Cir. 1989) (a court may enforce its decrees even when violations occur outside the district)