Barnes v. Annucci, 9:19-CV-0109 (TJM/ATB)

• Decision Date: 08 April 2019
• Docket Number: 9:19-CV-0109 (TJM/ATB)
• Parties: JESSIE J. BARNES, Plaintiff, v. MR. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Acting State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

JESSIE J. BARNES, Plaintiff,
v.
MR. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI,
Acting State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; et al., Defendants.

9:19-CV-0109 (TJM/ATB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 8, 2019

APPEARANCES:

JESSIE J. BARNES
09-B-2707
Plaintiff, pro se
Upstate Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Malone, NY 12953

THOMAS J. McAVOY Senior United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On or about January 28, 2019, plaintiff Jessie J. Barnes ("plaintiff") commenced this action pro se by filing a complaint and attached exhibits, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."); Dkt. No. 2. Since that date, plaintiff has submitted several other letters and letter motions to the Court concerning various issues. As relevant to this Decision and Order, the Clerk has now forwarded the following submissions for review: (1) plaintiff's complaint; (2) plaintiff's IFP application; (3) plaintiff's request to amend his complaint, Dkt. No. 6 ("Motion to Amend"); and (4) plaintiff's motion for

Page 2

sanctions against defendants, Dkt. No. 10 ("Motion for Sanctions").

II. IFP APPLICATION

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code ("Section 1915") "permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in a federal court without prepayment of the filing fee that would ordinarily be charged."¹ Cash v. Bernstein, No. 09-CV-1922, 2010 WL 5185047, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010). "Although an indigent, incarcerated individual need not prepay the filing fee at the time . . . of filing, he must subsequently pay the fee, to the extent he is able to do so, through periodic withdrawals from his inmate accounts." Cash, 2010 WL 5185047, at *1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); Harris v. City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 2010)).

Upon review, the Court finds that plaintiff has submitted a completed and signed IFP application, Dkt. No. 2, that demonstrates economic need. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff has also filed the inmate authorization form required in this District. Dkt. No. 3. Accordingly, plaintiff's IFP application is granted.

Page 3

III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT

A. Governing Legal Standard for Review of a Pro Se IFP Inmate's Complaint

Section 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that. . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).² Thus, even if a plaintiff satisfies the financial criteria to commence an action IFP, it is the court's responsibility to determine whether the plaintiff may properly maintain the complaint that he filed in this District before the Court may permit him to proceed with the action IFP. See id.

Likewise, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A ("Section 1915A"), a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint. . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (holding that Section 1915A applies "to all civil complaints brought by prisoners against governmental officials or entities regardless of whether the prisoner has paid the filing fee"); Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding that both Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A provide a basis for screening prisoner's complaints).

Page 4

In reviewing a pro se litigant's complaint, the Court has a duty to liberally construe the pleadings, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and should exercise "extreme caution . . . in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff) have had an opportunity to respond." Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1983). Therefore, a court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not 'show[n]'-'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Thus, a pleading that only "tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement" will not suffice. Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Page 5

B. Summary of the Complaint

Plaintiff's complaint is comprised of 77 handwritten pages naming 106 individuals as defendants. See generally Compl. The defendants fall into four categories: (1) individuals holding administrative positions within the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Service ("DOCCS"); (2) individuals employed by the New York State Office of Special Investigations ("OSI"); (3) individuals stationed at Upstate Correctional Facility ("Upstate C.F."), Clinton Correctional Facility ("Clinton C.F."), and Five Points Correctional Facility ("Five Points C.F.") (each of which is operated by DOCCS); and (4) individuals employed by the New York State Office of Mental Health ("OMH"). Id. at 1-4. Accompanying plaintiff's complaint is a 42-page exhibit list describing 412 documents. Dkt. No. 1-3. Plaintiff also submitted 285 pages worth of actual exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 1-4 - 1-7. None of the exhibits, however, are labeled as, for example, "Exhibit 1" or "Exhibit 2," and the complaint does not reference the exhibits.³

Plaintiff's complaint is not a model of clarity. Generally, the allegations involve incidents and conditions of confinement experienced by plaintiff while he was confined in Upstate C.F., Clinton C.F., and Five Points C.F. That said, however, the allegations are not organized in a coherent manner (for example by defendant, cause of action, or date of occurrence). The complaint also does not include a section wherein plaintiff lists the causes of action he purports to assert. Moreover, the source of much confusion is that the complaint is filled with allegations that can be fairly characterized as inflammatory. For example, the complaint is replete with allegations of name-calling and sweeping accusations that are

Page 6

supported only by offensive descriptions of the individual defendants. Notwithstanding these pleading deficiencies, the Court has carefully reviewed the complaint for purposes of Sections 1915 and 1915A, mindful of the Second Circuit's instruction to extend special solicitude to pro se litigants and liberally construe their pleadings. For the sake of brevity and clarity, the Court will not endeavor to summarize each occurrence or condition described in plaintiff's lengthy and disorganized complaint in this part of the Decision and Order. Instead, the relevant allegations supporting each of plaintiff's identifiable causes of action will be described below in Part III.D. at the outset of the analysis of each claim. A list of the 106 defendants and the paragraphs in the complaint in which they are mentioned is set forth below.

Defendant	Paragraph(s)
1. Anthony Annucci	8, 24, 115, 232
2. Kevin Bruen	8, 115, 228
3. Charles Quackenbush	8, 115, 228
4. Samantha Koolen	8, 228
5. Kevin Kortright	8, 228
6. Orianna Caravetta	228
7. Michelle Liberty	8, 156, 194, 198, 229-31, 242-43
8. Don Venettozzi	8, 115
9. Anthony Rodriguez	8, 248
10. Doe Carrigan	8, 24, 87
11. J.R. Blair	8, 24, 91, 239
12. Donald Uhler	1(iv)(b), 1(iv)(c), 3, 9, 21, 23, 23(iii), 25-27, 27(c), 27(d), 28-29,; 33-34, 45, 50, 58, 62, 113-16, 121, 123, 127, 139, 158, 168, 173,; 183, 198-99, 215, 218, 226
13. Paul Woodruff	9, 33, 45, 58, 60, 62, 110, 112-13, 115, 119, 123, 125, 127, 143-44,; 168, 174, 183, 197-98, 244, 246
14. Donald Quinn	9, 145, 196, 198

Page 7

15. Sandra Danforth	9, 62, 198, 222
16. Joanne Fitchette	9, 98, 100, 225
17. Matthew Kelsh	9, 40, 45-47, 55, 58
18. Stacy Dominic	9, 127
19. Albert Gravlin	3, 9, 21, 23(iii), 55, 127, 166, 168, 182-83, 185, 187
20. John Tatro	9, 25, 55, 155, 157, 231
21. Steven Salls, Jr.	3, 9, 21, 23(iii), 55, 127, 166, 168, 182-83, 185, 187, 198-99, 231
22. John Doe I, Upstate C.F. Lt. on 6/21/184	9, 176, 183, 185, 187, 197, 198
23. Tracy Nelson	9, 62, 79, 148, 156, 194, 198, 229-31
24. Denise Bernier	9, 62, 79
25. Denise Sauther	9, 50, 62, 88, 138, 145, 181
26. Cathleen Cook	9, 145
27. Sherri Debyah	4, 9, 130, 134, 142, 145
28. Erika Marshall	4, 9, 85, 130, 132-33, 135-37, 142-43, 145-46, 158-59, 165
29. Vijay Kumar Mandalaywala	9,

...