Green Haven Prison Preparative Meeting of Religious Soc'y of Friends v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corrs. & Cmty. Supervision

• Decision Date: 28 March 2022
• Docket Number: 18-CV-8497 (KMK)
• Parties: GREEN HAVEN PRISON PREPARATIVE MEETING OF THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

GREEN HAVEN PRISON PREPARATIVE MEETING OF THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al., Defendants.

No. 18-CV-8497 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 28, 2022

Michael Ellenberg, Esq.

Ellenberg Gannan Henninger Fitzmaurice LLP

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Frederick R. Dettmer, Esq.

Law Office of Frederick R. Dettmer

New Rochelle, NY

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Steven Schulman, Esq.

Office of the New York State Attorney General

Counsel for Defendants

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:

The Green Haven Prison Preparative Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (“Green Haven Meeting”), Yohannes Johnson (“Johnson”), Gregory Thompson (“Thompson”), Nine Partners Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (“Nine Partners Quarterly Meeting”), Donald Badgley (“Badgley”), Emily Boardman (“Boardman”), Bulls Head-Oswego

1

Monthly Meeting (“Bulls Head Meeting”), Carole Yvonne New (“New”), David Leif Anderson (“Anderson”), Poughkeepsie Monthly Meeting (“Poughkeepsie Meeting”), Frederick Doneit, Sr. (“Doneit”), Julia Giordano (“Giordano”), Margaret Seely (“Seely”), Solange Muller (“Muller”), and the New York Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, Inc. (“New York Yearly Meeting”; collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), Acting Commissioner of DOCCS Anthony Annucci (“Annucci”), Deputy Commissioner for Program Services of DOCCS Jeff McKoy (“McKoy”), Director of Ministerial, Family, and Volunteer Services Alicia Smith-Roberts (“Smith-Roberts”), Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”) Jamie LaManna (“LaManna”), Deputy Superintendent of Programs at Green Haven Jaifa Collado (“Collado”), and Deputy Superintendent of Program Services at Green Haven Marlyn Kopp (“Kopp”; collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.; violations of the First Amendment's Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Establishment clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, as made actionable by 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Article I, § 3 of the New York State Constitution; and New York Correction Law § 610, via restrictions imposed on communal religious practices of members of the Religious Society of Friends at Green Haven. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 4).) Before the Court is Defendants' Motion To Dismiss and for Summary Judgment on Exhaustion Grounds (the “Motion”). (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 75).) For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is granted.

2

I. Background

A. Materials Considered

As a threshold matter, the Court determines the proper treatment of materials submitted on the instant Motion. Defendants here move both to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and for summary judgment based on Plaintiffs' alleged failure to exhaust under Rule 56. (See Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 77).) “In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the [C]ourt may consider ‘only the facts alleged in the pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the pleadings, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81, 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (alteration omitted) (quoting Saimels v. Air Trans. Local 504, 992 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1993)). By contrast, in deciding a Rule 56 motion, the Court may consider any record evidence that would be admissible at trial. See Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Grp. of Am., Inc., 164 F.3d 736, 746 (2d Cir. 1998). Thus, the Court must take two separate approaches in deciding the matters subject to Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion versus the matter subject to Defendants' Rule 56 motion. In considering whether Plaintiffs have plausibly stated claims for relief, the Court has considered only the pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the pleadings, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. In considering whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court has considered the admissible evidence submitted by the Parties.^[1]

3

Defendants attach several exhibits to their Motion, which they argue are incorporated by reference in the Complaint for purposes of their Motion To Dismiss: (1) DOCCS Directive No. 4202, (see Decl. of Steven N. Schulman (“Schulman Decl”) (Dkt. No. 79) Ex. A (Dkt. No. 79-1)); (2) DOCCS Directive No. 4022, (see Schulman Decl. Ex. B (Dkt. No. 79-2)); and (3) a memorandum written by Kopp and dated July 10, 2018, (see Schulman Decl. Ex. C (Dkt. No. 79-3)). “Generally, a court may incorporate documents referenced where (1) [the] plaintiff relies on the materials in framing the complaint, (2) the complaint clearly and substantially references the documents, and (3) the document's authenticity or accuracy is undisputed.” Stewart v. Riviana Foods Inc., No. 16-CV-6157, 2017 WL 4045952, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2017) (emphasis omitted) (collecting cases); see also Dunkelberger v. Dunkelberger, No. 14-CV-3877, 2015 WL 5730605, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015) (“To be incorporated by reference, the complaint must make a clear, definite, and substantial reference to the documents, and to be integral to a complaint, the plaintiff must have (1) actual notice of the extraneous information and (2) relied upon the documents in framing the complaint.” (alterations omitted) (quoting Bill Diodato Photography LLC v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 12-CV-847, 2012 WL 4335164, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2012))). Plaintiffs clearly relied on all three documents in framing the Complaint and all three documents are clearly and substantially referenced in the Complaint. (See Compl. ¶¶ 50-64, 106.) Moreover, Plaintiffs do not appear to object to the incorporation of these documents in the Complaint. (See Pls.' Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Mot. 16 (arguing that these three documents in addition to a set of additional documents were

4

incorporated in the Complaint by reference) (Dkt. No. 91).) As such, the Court will consider these documents in ruling on the matters subject to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss-and, for that matter, in ruling on the matter subject to Defendants' Motion for Summary judgment where the documents are relevant and admissible.

Plaintiffs appear to argue that a number of other documents were also incorporated by reference in the Complaint for purposes of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss, (see id.), including: (1) a compilation of communications between Green Haven Meeting and certain Defendants regarding the alleged termination of Green Haven Meeting's Meetings for Worship With a Concern for Business, (see Aff. of Frederick R. Dettmer in Opp'n to Mot. (“Dettmer Aff.”) (Dkt. No. 90) Ex. 1 (Dkt. No. 90-1)); (2) a memorandum written by Plaintiffs' counsel to a DOCCS official, Reverend Alfred Twyman (“Twyman”), and dated April 10, 2018, (see Dettmer Aff. Ex. 2 (Dkt. No. 90-2)); (3) an email chain between Plaintiffs' counsel, Twyman, and other DOCCS officials, (see Dettmer Aff. Ex. 3 (Dkt. No. 90-3)); (4) a memorandum written by Kopp to Johnson (on behalf of Green Haven Meeting) and dated February 5, 2020, (see Dettmer Aff. Ex. 4 (Dkt. No. 90-4)); (5) a memorandum written by Johnson (on behalf of Green Haven Meeting) to Kopp and dated April 1, 2020, (see Dettmer Aff. Ex. 5 (Dkt. No. 90-5)); (6) a memorandum written by Kopp to Johnson (on behalf of Green Haven Meeting) and dated April 16, 2020, (see Dettmer Aff. Ex. 6 (Dkt. No. 90-6)); and (7) a copy of the Green Haven 2015 Special Events Calendar, (see Dettmer Aff. Ex. 7 (Dkt. No. 90-7)). None of these documents is specifically referenced in the Complaint, as such, it is axiomatic that none of these documents is incorporated by referenced into the Complaint.^[2] (See generally Compl.)

5

See also Hutson v. Notorious B.I.G., LLC, No. 14-CV-2307, 2015 WL 9450623, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2015) (declining to consider documents on a motion to dismiss as incorporated by reference where “they are not referenced in the [complaint]”). As such, the Court will not consider these documents in ruling on the matters subject to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss, though the Court will consider these documents to the extent relevant to the matter subject to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, where the documents are admissible.

B. Factual Background

As noted above, the only matter subject to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is exhaustion. Therefore, the following facts which pertain to all matters except exhaustion are drawn from the Complaint and assumed to be true for the purposes of resolving the instant Motion To Dismiss. See Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-N.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 9 F.4th 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Where relevant, the Court also recounts facts from the various other materials the Court has ruled it may consider in deciding Defendants' Motion To Dismiss.

The following facts which pertain to exhaustion are taken from the Parties' statements pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, (see Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement (“Defs.' 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 76); Pls.' Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement (“Pls.' Counter 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 92)), and the admissible evidence submitted by the Parties. These facts are recounted “in the light most favorable to” Plaintiffs, the non-movants. Torcivia v. Suffolk County, 17 F.4th 342, 354 (2d Cir. 2021). The facts regarding exhaustion as described below are in dispute only to the extent indicated.^[3]

6

1. Background of the Religious Society of Friends & Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs here are a group of individuals and associations that are part of the Religious Society of Friends, also...