Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Hendricks, a pro se state-prisoner, filed a grievance against Correction Officer Ayotte in October 2017 and later sued DOCCS officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation.
- He alleges Capt. DeLutis (the investigator) instructed staff to remove him from his tailor-shop job shortly after the grievance, and that removal occurred before any investigation and in violation of DOCCS procedures.
- Hendricks alleges Deputy Superintendent Holdridge approved the removal, lied about reviewing confidential documents, and supported DeLutis’s decision.
- Superintendent Bell and grievance Director Mallozzi affirmed the denial of Hendricks’s grievance on appeal and Hendricks says they failed to remedy the wrong.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommends denying dismissal as to DeLutis (retaliation claim survives) and granting dismissal as to Holdridge, Bell, and Mallozzi (no personal involvement shown post-Tangreti).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did Hendricks plead a First Amendment retaliation claim vs. DeLutis? | DeLutis removed him from job soon after grievance, failed to follow procedures, removal was adverse and causally linked. | No actionable adverse action or causal link; timing alone insufficient; security reasons justified removal. | Denied dismissal as to DeLutis: removal is an adverse action and facts (timing, procedure violations, DeLutis’s role in the investigation) plausibly support causation at pleading stage. |
| 2) Did Hendricks plead retaliation/personal involvement vs. Holdridge? | Holdridge approved removal, lied about reviewing documents, showed deliberate indifference. | No personal involvement; mere approval/absence of job right; no causal showing. | Granted dismissal as to Holdridge: allegations insufficient under § 1983 to show Holdridge’s own unconstitutional actions. |
| 3) Did Hendricks plead retaliation/personal involvement vs. Bell and Mallozzi (grievance reviewers)? | They learned of the violation via appeals and failed to remedy it, showing indifference. | Denial/affirmance of grievances and appeals is not personal involvement; temporal gap undermines causation. | Granted dismissal as to Bell and Mallozzi: grievance handling/appeals do not plausibly establish the supervisors’ own constitutional violations post-Tangreti. |
| 4) What pleading standard / supervisory-liability test applies? | Hendricks treats Colon factors and grievance appeals as evidence of supervisory liability. | Defendants argue Tangreti/Iqbal require pleading each official’s own unconstitutional acts. | Court applied Twombly/Iqbal and Tangreti: require pleading each defendant’s individual conduct; Colon-style respondeat-superior allegations insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth; individual action required)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d. Cir. 2020) (supervisory liability requires each official’s own unconstitutional conduct)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d. Cir. 1995) (former multi-factor test for supervisory liability — discussed and limited by Tangreti)
- Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (protected conduct must be a substantial or motivating factor)
- Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346 (2d. Cir. 2003) (filing of prison grievances is constitutionally protected activity)
- Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489 (2d. Cir. 2001) (courts should approach prisoner retaliation claims with caution)
- Gayle v. Gonyea, 313 F.3d 677 (2d. Cir. 2002) (temporal proximity can be circumstantial evidence of retaliation)