Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Yolanda Keyes as administratrix for Francisco DeJesus, Herron Emerenciano, and Rashad Scott) are former Clinton Correctional Facility inmates and/or ILC (Inmate Liaison Committee) members who sued DOCCS officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation, due-process violations, supervisory liability, mail/free-speech interference, and conspiracy arising after the June 2015 Clinton escape.
- Alleged adverse acts include false misbehavior reports, disciplinary hearings resulting in keeplock/SHU, transfers to other facilities, destruction of incoming mail from reporters, and threats to file reports—allegedly motivated by plaintiffs’ grievance-writing, ILC activity, and media/attorney contacts.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple DOCCS officials in official and individual capacities, and sought monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief (including amendment of DOCCS Directive 4002 to protect ILC members).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, raising Eleventh Amendment immunity, pleading insufficiency (Twombly/Iqbal), lack of personal involvement for supervisors, absence of causal link for retaliation, no atypical liberty interest for due-process claims, and insufficient mail/free-speech allegations.
- The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part: retained First Amendment retaliation claims for DeJesus and Emerenciano (and Scott only as to an alleged retaliatory transfer), denied Scott’s mail/free-speech and due-process claims, dismissed DeJesus’s due-process claims, dismissed supervisory claims as to Annucci and Kirkpatrick but allowed supervisory and appeal-review claims to proceed against Venettozzi, and dismissed conspiracy claims and certain defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment (official-capacity suits) | Plaintiffs seek relief including injunctive/declaratory and damages against state officials | Defendants: Eleventh Amendment bars monetary and retroactive relief against state officials | Court: Damages and retroactive relief barred; prospective injunctive/declaratory relief allowed under Ex Parte Young; individual-capacity claims survive |
| First Amendment retaliation – DeJesus (misbehavior → keeplock) | Letter/grievances were protected; misbehavior report and keeplock were retaliatory and temporally proximate | Defendants: report based on independent interview/legitimate reasons; insufficient motive pleaded | Court: Pleading plausible; claim survives (denied dismissal) |
| First Amendment retaliation – Emerenciano (ILC speech → misbehavior → SHU) | ILC statements were protected; false misbehavior report issued three days later; SHU confinement was retaliatory | Defendants: conclusory, no causal link, normal disciplinary process followed | Court: Plausible causal link and adverse action; claim survives |
| First Amendment retaliation – Scott (mail destruction; threatened write-up; transfer) | Destroyed media mail and threats were retaliatory; transfer was punishment for advocacy | Defendants: isolated mail incidents, security justification, threats alone not adverse, transfer not shown retaliatory | Court: Mail-destruction and mere threat claims dismissed; transfer-based retaliation claim against Houck survives |
| Fourteenth Amendment due process – liberty interest | DeJesus/Emerenciano: keeplock/SHU deprivation + collateral harms create atypical, significant hardship | Defendants: durations/conditions not atypical; no “some evidence” defect pleaded | Court: DeJesus (60 days keeplock) — not atypical; due-process claims dismissed. Emerenciano (150 days SHU) — borderline/pleaded sufficiently; claim survives and challenger (Bell) remains |
| Supervisory liability (Annucci, Kirkpatrick, Venettozzi) | Supervisors had notice (ILC letter, meetings, news reports) and failed to remedy or affirm unconstitutional discipline | Defendants: mere receipt of letters or general awareness insufficient; no personal involvement or deliberate policy | Court: Annucci & Kirkpatrick supervisory claims dismissed for lack of plausible personal involvement; Venettozzi survives because affirming/modifying appeals plausibly shows active review (not mere rubber stamp) |
| Mail / free-speech and property due process (Scott) | Destruction of incoming reporter mail violated First and Fourteenth Amendments and Procunier protections | Defendants: letters were non-legal, isolated incidents, security justification; Procunier limited to outgoing mail | Court: Mail claims dismissed—insufficient pattern, legitimate penological reason, and Procunier inapplicable to incoming non-legal mail |
| Conspiracy (§ 1983) | Defendants conspired to deny due process and retaliate | Defendants: no facts showing an agreement or overt acts in concert | Court: Conspiracy claim dismissed for lack of factual allegation of agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions insufficient; plausibility standard)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (Eleventh Amendment and official-capacity suits)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (permitting prospective relief against state officers)
- Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2004) (elements of prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2003) (filing grievances is protected activity; retaliation analysis)
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (procedural protections for outgoing mail; limited by later cases)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (incoming mail governed by penological-reasonableness test)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (supervisory liability factors)
- Sealey v. Giltner, 187 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 1999) (atypicality analysis for restrictive confinement)