Ahlers v. Rabinowitz

• Citation: 684 F.3d 53
• Decision Date: 06 April 2012
• Docket Number: Docket No. 10–1193.
• Parties: Karl AHLERS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Steven RABINOWITZ, Director, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Dora Deatras, Ward D–9–B Treatment Team Leader, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Imogine Thompson, Ward D–9–B, Staff Member, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Felicity Moe, Ward D–9–B, Staff Member, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

684 F.3d 53

Karl AHLERS, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Steven RABINOWITZ, Director, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Dora Deatras, Ward D–9–B Treatment Team Leader, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Imogine Thompson, Ward D–9–B, Staff Member, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Felicity Moe, Ward D–9–B, Staff Member, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Defendants–Appellees.

Docket No. 10–1193.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: Dec. 7, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2012.

Thomas H. Dupree, Jr. (Frederick Liu, Erik R. Zimmerman, on the brief), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, N.Y., for Appellees.

Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, CABRANES and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge:

Karl Ahlers appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.) dismissing his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ahlers is a convicted sex-offender who has been civilly committed post-release from prison. He alleges that when he was confined in the Manhattan Psychiatric Center (the “Center”), staff seized and withheld his personal DVDs and CDs and his incoming non-legal mail in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and his procedural due process rights. The district court did not err in concluding that the complaint fails to state any claim for which relief can be granted. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). This opinion undertakes to clarify some applicable principles. We affirm the judgment of the district court because, in any event, it was objectively reasonable for the Center staff to believe that their acts did not violate Ahlers's rights. They are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

BACKGROUND

In August 1982, Ahlers was convicted of sex offenses involving children aged seven to sixteen: specifically, two counts of sodomy in the first degree, one count of sodomy in the second degree, one count of sodomy in the third degree, three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. People v. Ahlers, 98 A.D.2d 821, 470 N.Y.S.2d 483, 483 (3d Dep't 1983). After release from prison in 2005, Ahlers was involuntarily placed in civil custody, first in the Kirby Forensic Center and then, in August 2007, in the Sex Offender Treatment Program at the Center. In December 2008, Ahlers filed a pro se complaint against the Center's Director, Steven Rabinowitz, and three Center employees—Dora Deatras, Imogine Thompson, and Felicity Moe—(collectively, the “Defendants”) alleging that they withheld from him certain CDs and DVDs, and his mail, in violation of the Constitution and federal law. The allegations are set out below.

CDs and DVDs. Ahlers alleges that because of his hearing loss, he was granted permission to have a personal DVD player, DVDs, and CDs, so that he could listen through headphones. Other patients received similar accommodations. Over time, with the Center's permission, Ahlers acquired a collection of 163 DVDs and 86 CDs (collectively, the “discs”). According to Ahlers, the DVDs contain content similar to what is broadcast on the Center's televisions, and the CDs contain classical music.

On April 21, 2008, staff entered Ahlers's room without warning, seized his DVD player and all his discs, and informed him that the discs would be reviewed and returned. On May 6, Ahlers met with his parole officer and members of his treatment team—defendants Deatras, Thompson, and Moe—and he was assured that they would review his DVDs. On May 19, at a meeting of all the patients in Ahlers's ward, Deatras announced that the staff was screening for sexually explicit material.

On May 28, Ahlers met to discuss the seizure with the Center's Deputy Director, Charles Herrmann, who said he would look into the matter, but did not get back to Ahlers. Ahlers followed up with a letter, but got no reply.

On May 30, Deatras returned 16 DVDs and the DVD player to Ahlers and presented him with a receipt, which indicated that 14 DVDs had been permanently confiscated for containing sexually explicit material and that 131 had yet to be reviewed.¹

On June 18, Ahlers discussed the seizure with Don Graham, a lawyer in “Mental Health Services,” who later met with the ward psychologist and Deatras. Two days later, Ahlers asked when he would get back the remaining discs, and was told by Deatras that just one person was available to screen DVDs, but that she would talk to that individual. Later that day, Deatras returned 15 DVDs, and told Ahlers that the remaining DVDs had not yet been reviewed.

Toward the end of June, Deatras gave Ahlers a list of the 14 permanently confiscated DVDs and a memo from defendant Steven Rabinowitz, Director of the Center, responding to a letter Ahlers had written. Rabinowitz advised that it was clinically inappropriate for Ahlers to have sexually explicit material and sexual material involving children, and that the permanently confiscated DVDs had been deemed clinically inappropriate.

On July 28, the Center returned ten more DVDs to Ahlers. On August 8, twenty more were returned.

Mail. On March 20, 2008, a United States Government Printing Office (“GPO”) catalog arrived in the mail for Ahlers. Thompson withheld it to submit it to Deatras for review. On April 28, Ahlers asked Moe about it and was told a decision had not yet been made. On May 3, Deatras returned the catalog; with Ahlers's permission, the cover was removed.

On March 21, 2008, Thompson intercepted a piece of mail and turned it over to Deatras, who told Ahlers that it had been given to his social worker. Ahlers never received the item.

On April 28, Moe withheld an issue of Smithsonian magazine and a mail-order catalog. In response to Ahlers's inquiry about the magazine in early May, Deatras told Ahlers she had not yet had time to review it. On May 12, Moe returned the magazine.

Also on April 28, another patient informed Ahlers that he had seen a package addressed to Ahlers. Ahlers went to pick it up, but the package was not available. The next day, Ahlers received the package and was told by Deatras that she was holding pending review five catalogs and one magazine.

On May 5, defendant Thompson withheld a Heartland mail-order catalog and a catalog of DVDs. The Heartland catalog had a photograph of a replica revolver, and the DVD catalog had a photograph of Civil War soldiers with flintlock rifles. When Ahlers objected, Thompson gave him the DVD catalog, but withheld the Heartland catalog for review by a parole officer.

On June 24, Center staff withheld several brochures from the Chamber of Commerce of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which contained pictures of children in bathing suits. The brochures were not returned.

On July 11, an attendant told Ahlers that some of his mail was being withheld for review; Ahlers never got it. On July 21, two books were held for review. On July 22, Thompson withheld brochures from the Medford, Oregon Chamber of Commerce. Ahlers never received them.

Dismissal of the Complaint. The district court construed the complaint to raise allegations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112–12117 (“ADA”), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments. The court concluded that Ahlers failed to state an ADA claim because he had not alleged an impairment that “substantially limits one or more major life activities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A); that he failed to state claims under § 1985 and § 1986 because he had not alleged that he was deprived of rights on account of his membership in a protected class; that he failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim because the “Defendants seized [his] property to promote the safety and welfare of the [Center's] staff and patients”; and that he failed to state a First Amendment claim because “the Defendants had a legitimate penological interest in monitoring, screening, and withholding [his] property.” Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, No. 08 Civ. 11091(PAC)(KNF), 2010 WL 808773, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2010).

Ahlers appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 claims for First and Fourth Amendment violations and argues that the district court failed to consider his procedural due process claim.²

DISCUSSION

“We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ... The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’ ” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citation omitted) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). “This is particularly so when the pro se plaintiff alleges that h[is] civil rights have been violated.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir.2008).³

“In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that some person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right...