Keitt v. Annetts
9:10-cv-00157
| N.D.N.Y. | Jul 25, 2011Background
- Keitt, an inmate with dyslexia, alleges inadequate accommodations and discriminatory practices by DOCCS related to disciplinary proceedings and intake procedures.
- He received misbehavior reports in October 2007 and November 2008, leading to SHU confinement and loss of privileges after disciplinary hearings.
- Keitt claims the reports violated DOCCS directives, that hearings were unfair, and that witnesses could not be called or assisted adequately due to his disability.
- He also contends that his personal property was damaged or destroyed during a housing transfer, and seeks ADA accommodations.
- Plaintiff moves for a TRO and an amendment to the complaint; defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the magistrate judge recommends grant-in-part and denial-in-part of defendants’ motion and denial of Keitt’s motions.
- The report-recommendation concludes ADA claims against individuals should be dismissed, due process issues require further development regarding notice and an assistant, and that other claims be dismissed or denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the misbehavior reports complied with due process notice requirements | Keitt contends notices were insufficient and unwritten rights undermined his defense | Reports provided specific facts of the alleged incidents | Partially granted; notices deemed adequate in terms of specific facts, but due process may require an assistant for Keitt’s defense |
| Whether Keitt adequately pled Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment | Conditions in isolation violated basic human needs | No severe or lasting deprivation shown; showers access not mandated | Denied; Eighth Amendment claim dismissed for lack of substantial harm or deprivation of a specific need |
| Whether the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims survive due to alleged regulatory noncompliance | Due process violated by failure to follow regulations and denial of witnesses/assistance | Some procedures met due process; others require dismissal | In part; some due process claims survive factual development, others dismissed |
| Whether ADA claims against DOCCS and individuals are cognizable and what accommodations are required | Keitt seeks screening and specialized accommodations | ADA requires reasonable accommodations, not subsistence of new programs; cannot sue individuals | ADA claims against individuals dismissed; only reasonable accommodations recognized; programmatic relief denied |
| Whether the property destruction claim warrants relief or proper venue | Keitt suffered loss/destruction of personal property | Article 78 and Court of Claims provide proper avenues; state remedy adequate | Dismissed; venue proper in state court; Article 78 remedies adequate to address loss of property |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process in disciplinary proceedings requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (protects liberty interest from atypical, significant deprivation based on duration and conditions)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires facial plausibility, not mere legal conclusions)
- Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1996) (prisoners are entitled to due process; the welfare of illiterate inmates may require assistance)
- Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543 (2d Cir. 2000) (distinguishes reasonable accommodations from substantively different services under the ADA)