Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Plaintiff Andrew Hendricks, a pro se prisoner, filed a §1983 suit alleging First Amendment retaliation after he was removed from a tailor-shop job following a grievance he filed against C.O. Ayotte.
- Defendant Captain C. DeLutis requested the removal; Defendants Holdridge (Deputy Superintendent), Bell (Superintendent), and Mallozzi (Director, CORC) reviewed or affirmed the removal on grievance/appeal.
- The Court allowed an amended complaint asserting retaliation claims against DeLutis, Holdridge, Bell, and Mallozzi; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended dismissing claims against Holdridge, Bell, and Mallozzi (but not DeLutis), concluding grievance-handling and appeals did not plausibly show supervisory personal involvement after Tangreti.
- Hendricks objected, arguing additional pleaded facts show personal involvement and that Tangreti should not be applied to his pre-Tangreti complaint; the District Court applied Tangreti, adopted the R&R, dismissed Holdridge, Bell, and Mallozzi, left the claim against DeLutis, and denied leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hendricks pleaded supervisory "personal involvement" by Holdridge, Bell, Mallozzi for First Amendment retaliation | Allegations (Holdridge reviewed confidential docs; Bell misquoted policy; Mallozzi rubber-stamped) show active, culpable involvement beyond mere grievance handling | Their acts were limited to reviewing/affirming grievance decisions and thus do not show a supervisor's own unconstitutional action | Dismissed claims against Holdridge, Bell, Mallozzi — grievance/appeal activity insufficient to plausibly allege supervisory personal involvement |
| Whether denial/affirmation of grievances alone can establish supervisory liability | Denial/affirmation here accompanied by alleged false statements and policy manipulation that show personal involvement | Supervisory review or appeal does not constitute the supervisor's own unconstitutional conduct under controlling law | Denial/affirmation alone insufficient; allegations did not plausibly allege supervisors’ own constitutional violations |
| Whether Tangreti (newer standard on supervisory liability) applies to this pre-Tangreti amended complaint | Applying Tangreti retroactively is unfair because complaint was filed before Tangreti | Court must apply current law at decision time; retroactivity exception does not apply | Tangreti applied; plaintiff not excused from pleading supervisor’s own actions |
| Whether Hendricks should get leave to amend again | Requests leave but gave no specifics how to cure pleading defects | Defendants opposed; plaintiff already had an opportunity to amend | Leave to amend denied — plaintiff already amended once and did not specify how to cure defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020) (supervisory liability requires supervisor’s own unconstitutional actions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible, not merely conceivable, claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Walsche v. First Inv’rs Corp., 981 F.2d 649 (2d Cir. 1992) (courts apply governing law as of decision date; narrow retroactivity exception)
- Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971) (factors for limiting retroactive application of judicial decisions)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (liberal leave-to-amend standard for pro se litigants)