Rasheen v. Adner
356 F. Supp. 3d 222
N.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Samuel Toliver, a New York state prisoner, sued DOCCS officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events at Riverview C.F., later transferred to the Northern District of New York.
- Core events (May–June 2017): Toliver mailed complaints to FDA and NYSDOH alleging spoiled/contaminated food; a corrections officer (Adner) allegedly intercepted, opened, copied, and destroyed his outgoing legal mail and issued a Tier III misbehavior report.
- Toliver received disciplinary process results: SHU confinement (exhibit shows 60 days; plaintiff alleges he actually served ~120 days), loss of privileges, and loss of six months’ good time credit affecting his 2021 release.
- He alleges constitutional violations: unlawful search/seizure (mail), tampering with legal mail, denial of access to courts, conspiracy, failure to investigate, violations of DOCCS directives, due process violations in disciplinary hearing, Eighth Amendment conditions (food and SHU), equal protection, and retaliation.
- Court granted Toliver in forma pauperis but dismissed many claims for failure to state a claim or on immunity grounds; the Fourth Amendment and retaliation claims against Adner survived and will be served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment — interception of outgoing mail | Toliver: Adner unreasonably opened/confiscated his outgoing legal mail; supervisors directed it. | Defendants: searches may be reasonable in prison; supervisors lacked personal involvement; isolated incident. | Fourth Amendment claim against Adner survives; claims against supervisory defendants dismissed for lack of pleaded personal involvement. |
| First Amendment — mail tampering & access-to-courts | Toliver: interception destroyed legal papers and prejudiced anticipated litigation. | Defendants: single/isolated mail opening insufficient; no actual injury shown to specific legal action. | Mail-interference and access-to-court claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead ongoing interference or actual injury. |
| Procedural Due Process — disciplinary hearing & SHU sanctions | Toliver: false misbehavior report and procedural defects at Tier III hearing led to SHU and loss of good time. | Defendants: plaintiff failed to plead specifics of the hearing, personal involvement, or prejudice; Heck bar applies to challenges affecting sentence length. | Due process claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim; challenge to sanctions affecting duration barred by Heck unless plaintiff abandons duration challenge or shows prior favorable termination. |
| Eighth Amendment — food and SHU conditions | Toliver: served spoiled/undercooked food; SHU conditions caused physical/psychological harm. | Defendants: no specific injuries alleged from food; no facts tying named defendants to SHU conditions or deliberate indifference. | Food-related Eighth Amendment claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of alleged injury; SHU conditions claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege personal involvement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions vs. factual pleading; supervisor liability)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (official-capacity § 1983 claims are claims against the State)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (§ 1983 claims challenging duration of confinement barred unless favorable termination)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest analysis for disciplinary segregation)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (prisoners’ right of access to the courts)
- Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12 (Eighth Amendment requires food be safe and prepared under sanitary conditions)