Cromwell v. Hendel
1:20-cv-00317-LJV-HKS
W.D.N.Y.Oct 28, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Corey Cromwell, a New York state prisoner, alleges that Attica officers Hendel and Wagner harassed and retaliated against him and his then-fiancée during visits in October–November 2018.
- Cromwell alleges Hendel made insulting comments during visits, then accused him of smuggling contraband, leading to a strip search, placement in a cold Special Watch Room in a thin smock, multiple fecal samples, and later a 19-day SHU placement on an alleged false misbehavior report.
- Cromwell and his fiancée filed multiple grievances and complaints, including to Superintendent Noeth; Cromwell asserts Noeth failed to remedy the misconduct and later retaliated by suspending visiting privileges.
- Procedurally: the court previously allowed First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment claims to proceed against Hendel and Wagner but dismissed claims against Noeth for lack of personal involvement; Cromwell moved for reconsideration and reasserted claims against Noeth in a second amended complaint.
- This order screens the second amended complaint as to Noeth and dismisses all claims against Noeth under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Hendel and Wagner remain as defendants and must respond.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official-capacity damages (Eleventh Amendment) | Cromwell sues Noeth in both individual and official capacities seeking damages | Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against the State and state officials sued in their official capacities | Official-capacity money-damages claims dismissed |
| Procedural due process — SHU confinement | Noeth was responsible for wrongful 19-day SHU confinement without due process | A 19-day SHU placement (and as-pled conditions) is not an "atypical and significant" hardship entitling Cromwell to due process | Due process claim dismissed without leave to amend |
| Eighth Amendment — conditions of confinement | Special Watch Room conditions (cold, thin smock, unsanitary mattress), strip search and repeated fecal tests amounted to cruel and unusual punishment | Duration and alleged conditions are insufficiently severe or prolonged to establish an Eighth Amendment violation | Eighth Amendment claim dismissed without leave to amend |
| Equal protection (race) | Cromwell claims deprivation of equal protection | Complaint contains no factual allegations showing race-based discrimination | Equal protection claim dismissed |
| Retaliation for grievances / visiting-privilege suspension | Noeth retaliated by suspending visiting privileges after Cromwell filed grievances | Cromwell fails to plead a plausible causal connection; temporal proximity alone is insufficient and records show Noeth investigated and reinstated visits | Retaliation claim dismissed; temporary suspension of visits not a constitutional deprivation |
| Supervisory liability / failure to investigate & NY State Constitutional claim | Noeth liable for failing to investigate/discipline staff and violated state constitution | Ignoring letters/grievances is insufficient for personal involvement; New York Correction Law §24 bars state-law claims against state officers for acts within scope of employment | Supervisory-liability allegations and state-constitutional claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636 (2d Cir. 2007) (screening and dismissal standards for in forma pauperis prisoner complaints)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (leave to amend futile standard)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020) (supervisory liability requires individual unconstitutional action)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for individual liability)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (analysis of "atypical and significant hardship" for liberty interests)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) (Eighth Amendment review of conditions of confinement)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (retaliation claim elements)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (circumstantial evidence and categories of retaliation proof)
- Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1996) (burden to show protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)