Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Corey A. Latimer, Sr., incarcerated at Green Haven, sued DOCCS Commissioner Anthony Annucci, Superintendent Mark Royce, Sergeants Rosita Rossy and David Mazella, and IGP Director Shelley Mallozzi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after prison officers confiscated his face mask on April 14, 2020.
- Latimer filed a grievance requesting a replacement mask; grievance denial cited a DOCCS direction permitting only a state-issued handkerchief as a face covering; Mallozzi acknowledged his appeal.
- Latimer tested positive for COVID-19 on July 19, 2020 and was isolated; he alleges that shortly after his infection Green Haven mandated masks like the one taken from him.
- Defendants moved to dismiss. The court accepted Latimer’s factual allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss analysis and applied the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard, while construing pro se filings liberally.
- The court dismissed all official-capacity claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed claims against Superintendent Royce and Director Mallozzi for lack of personal involvement.
- The court denied dismissal of Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against Commissioner Annucci, Sgt. Rossy, and Sgt. Mazella, finding Latimer plausibly alleged objective risk and defendants’ deliberate indifference; those defendants were ordered to answer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity suits | Latimer sued officials (official-capacity claims asserted) | State officials immune from suit under Eleventh Amendment | Held: Official-capacity claims dismissed (immunity applies) |
| Personal involvement of supervisory defendants | Annucci issued direction; Mallozzi acknowledged appeal; Royce was named | Supervisors not personally involved in mask confiscation or policy enforcement | Held: Royce and Mallozzi dismissed for lack of personal involvement; Annucci plausibly alleged to have enacted policy and survives |
| Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement (mask confiscation during COVID) | Confiscation posed an unreasonable risk; Latimer contracted COVID-19 afterward | Allegations insufficient to state a constitutional claim | Held: Plausible Eighth Amendment claims survive against Annucci, Rossy, and Mazella (objective risk + deliberate indifference) |
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) | Pro se pleadings entitled to liberal construction; facts support claims | Complaint fails Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard | Held: Court applied Iqbal/Twombly but found certain allegations sufficient to proceed for specified defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 8 plausibility requirement)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard for prison conditions)
- Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (objective and subjective elements for conditions-of-confinement claims)
- Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156 (Eighth Amendment protection for humane prison conditions)
- Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (affirmative obligation to protect inmates from infectious disease)
- Spavone v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d 127 (personal involvement requirement under § 1983)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (supervisory liability cannot rest on respondeat superior)
- Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319 (mere acknowledgement of grievance insufficient for personal involvement)
- Woods v. Rondout Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 466 F.3d 232 (state officials sued in official capacities are generally immune under the Eleventh Amendment)