Hill v. Washburn
| Decision Date | 11 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | 08-CV-6285-CJS |
| Parties | MICHAEL HILL, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN WASHBURN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
DECISION & ORDER
APPEARANCES
For plaintiff: Michael Hill, pro se
Southport Correctional Facility
For defendants: J. Richard Benitez, A.A.G.
New York State Attorney General's Office
Siragusa, J. Michael Hill, ("Plaintiff"), a prison inmate currently in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against DOCCS employees for alleged violations of his First Amendment constitutional rights in connection with the way his mail correspondence was handled while he was incarcerated at SouthportCorrectional Facility ("Southport"). At the time of the incidents alleged, Defendant Kathleen Washburn ("Washburn") was Southport's Mailroom Supervisor, Defendant Angela Bartlett ("Bartlett") was Deputy Supervisor of Programs, Defendant Sabrina VonHagn ("VonHagn") was Southport's Grievance Supervisor, and Defendant David Napoli ("Napoli") was Southport's Superintendent. ECF Nos. 1, 9.
In his amended complaint, ECF No. 9, Plaintiff alleges that Washburn tampered with, destroyed, or otherwise failed to deliver his mail, and that some of these actions were taken in retaliation for grievances that he had filed against her and other Defendants in this action. He further alleges that VonHagn, Napoli, and Bartlett knowingly acquiesced in Washburn's actions, failed to take corrective actions, or to protect his mail, and otherwise conspired with one another to prevent Plaintiff from pursuing his grievances and gaining access to the courts. Am. Compl., ¶¶ 26-47.
On March 24, 2009, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff's official capacity claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (2) Plaintiff's substantive due process, retaliation, and conspiracy claims were conclusory; and (3) Plaintiff's amended complaint lacked allegations of personal involvement on behalf of certain defendants. ECF Nos. 11-13.
In a Decision and Order dated February 7, 2011, ECF No. 39, this Court granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in part, dismissing Plaintiff's conspiracy and due process claims, dismissing all claims against Defendants in their official capacities, and dismissing all claims against Napoli for lack of personal involvement. The two remaining causes of action in the amended complaint allege First Amendment violations arising out of the Defendants' handling of Plaintiff's correspondence, see Am.Compl. ¶¶ 26-36, and are the subject of the parties' competing motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 15 & 28.1
Also pending are Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, ECF No. 21, filed on October 22, 2010; Plaintiff's motion to attach exhibits to his motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 22, filed on October 25, 2010; and Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion pursuant to Rule 6(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 25, filed on November 29, 2010.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety. In light of this disposition, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied as moot, Defendants' motion for a Rule 6 extension is granted nunc pro tunc, and Plaintiff's motion to attach exhibits is granted.2
In February, 2007, while incarcerated at Southport, Plaintiff submitted privileged correspondence to the facility's correspondence office addressed to Leigh Anderson, Esq., an attorney in Buffalo, New York. The correspondence was returned to Plaintiff with a notice that the envelope was incorrectly addressed per the 2007 edition of the New YorkState Lawyer's Diary. Plaintiff filed a grievance concerning the handling of the Anderson correspondence, which the Inmate Grievance Review Committee ("IGRC") accepted in part and advised Plaintiff to update the address so that the mailroom staff could mail out his item. Plaintiff contends that the Anderson correspondence was opened and returned to him as "non-legal." Pl. Stmt., ECF No. 15, ¶ 4.
On or about March 2, 2008, staff at Southport returned to the sender general mail addressed to Plaintiff from the "Word Station," a New Jersey company that provides typing and transcription services. The correspondence was a letter regarding payment for the typing of a manuscript, non-legal in nature, prepared by Plaintiff. The letter indicated that Plaintiff had previously attempted to pay for typing services with 201 postage stamps, a violation of DOCCS' policy. Plaintiff maintains that the mailroom staff at Southport erroneously marked and returned the Word Station correspondence as "non-approved vendor." Pl. Stmt., ¶ 16.
On March 28, 2008, Southport mailroom staff received Plaintiff's sealed correspondence addressed to the Word Station from Plaintiff dated March 27, 2008, in violation of DOCCS Directive 4422(III)((E)(4), which states that all business mail must be submitted unsealed and is subject to inspection. Mailroom employees opened Plaintiff's letter, which contained 100 postage stamps provided as payment for typing services by the Word Station. The letter referenced a total of over 300 postage stamps being sent for the Word Station's services. Defendant Washburn issued a misbehavior report on March 28, 2008, charging Plaintiff with smuggling, improper stamp possession, and correspondence violations. See 7 NYCRR § 270.2(14)-(15) & (26)(ii). Specifically, Washburn alleged thatPlaintiff had in his possession or had sent out over 300 stamps despite having purchased no stamps at the commissary and having no money in his inmate account. The misbehavior report also charged that Plaintiff was conspiring to violate correspondence rules by asking the Word Station to send his typed materials to his attorney's address.
Plaintiff admits to having sent the stamps as legal tender, but denies that he did not purchase them from the commissary, and also claims that his correspondence with the Word Station was "media mail," not subject to Directive 4422(III)((E)(4). Pl. Stmt. ¶ 18; Pl. Mem., ECF No. 15, at 14.
Plaintiff's violations were reported to Southport security, which in turn authorized a search of Plaintiff's cell on March 31, 2008, during which 11 additional stamps and other contraband were confiscated.
Shortly after the March 28, 2008, misbehavior report, Defendant Bartlett wrote to the Word Station, advising that inmates were not permitted to pay for services with stamps, and that the stamps Plaintiff sent to the Word Station would have to be returned to the facility in order for the Word Station to remain on DOCCS approved vendor list.
Following a disciplinary hearing on April 15, 2008, Plaintiff was found guilty of possessing excess stamps and violating correspondence procedures. He was sentenced to four months of confinement in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), which was suspended until December 4, 2008. The smuggling charge was dismissed.
On March 12, 2008, staff at the Southport mailroom opened mail addressed to Plaintiff as general correspondence bearing a return address of "Pro Se Litigators." Because "Pro Se Litigators" was not an entity listed in DOCCS Directive 4421, § 721.2(a), which defines privileged correspondence as government, legal services, and medical services, mailroom staff treated the letter as general correspondence subject to opening and inspection. Plaintiff contends that the mail received from Pro Se Litigators was legal mail pertaining to a pending lawsuit in this Court, and that it was interfered with by Southport employees. Pl. Stmt. ¶¶ 7-8.
Per DOCCS Directives, a five-page limit of printed or photocopied materials applied to incoming mail. Because the contents of the Pro Se Litigators correspondence exceeded five pages, the balance of the mail was confiscated to either be returned to the sender at Plaintiff's expense or otherwise disposed of. See DOCCS Directive 4422(III)(G)(3)-(4). Plaintiff was told to use the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") process to obtain copies of the documents which were not delivered to him under Directive 4422. See New York Public Officers Law § 87 et seq.
On March 24, 2008, Plaintiff wrote to Superintendent Napoli and asked for permission to receive his manuscript and that the legal documents from Pro Se Litigators be given to him. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Bartlett wrote to Plaintiff, advising him that the manuscript was subject to the five-page limit described in Directive 4422 on incoming correspondence.
Plaintiff filed several grievances concerning the Pro Se Litigators correspondence, and requested an advance to send the confiscated material to Pro Se Litigators under Directive 4421, § 721.3(a)(3)(iv), which provides that an indigent inmate may make a request for an advance to pay for first class mail postage if the inmate has insufficient funds and certain conditions are met. Pursuant to Directive 4421, "[a]ny question whether a particular item qualifies as 'legal mail,' or whether an advance is allowable should be directed to [DOCCS' office of counsel.]" Directive 4421, § 721.3(a)(3)(vii).
Upon review by the IGRC and the Central Office Review Committee ("CORC"), Plaintiff was notified that, "[p]er Counsel's Office in Albany, Pro Se Litigators is not entitled to privileged correspondence status." Def. Ex. B, ECF No. 26-21. He was further advised of the five-page limit applicable to general correspondence, and that he could initiate a FOIL request to obtain the requested documents.
In addition, Plaintiff wrote to Superintendent Napoli alleging that Washburn was...
To continue reading
Request your trial