John D. Justice v. Woodlock

• Decision Date: 24 November 2014
• Docket Number: 9:13-CV-0252 (NAM/TWD)
• Parties: JOHN D. JUSTICE, Plaintiff, v. KRISTEN M. WOODLOCK, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health; DR. BRIAN BELFI; and BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

JOHN D. JUSTICE, Plaintiff, v. KRISTEN M. WOODLOCK, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health;DR. BRIAN BELFI; and BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department ofCorrections and Community Supervision, Defendants

9:13-CV-0252 (NAM/TWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

November 24, 2014

APPEARANCES:

JOHN D. JUSTICE

87-B-0385

Plaintiff pro se

Great Meadow Correctional Facility

Box 51

Comstock, New York 128

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN

Attorney General for the State of New York

Attorney for Defendant

The Capitol

Albany, New York 12223

OF COUNSEL:

KEVIN M. HAYDEN, ESQ.

Syracuse Regional Office

615 Erie Boulevard West, Suite 102

Syracuse, NY 13204-2465

THÉRÈSE WILEY DANCKS, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND REPORT-RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff John D. Justice, an inmate presently confined in Great Meadow Correctional Facility ("Great Meadow"), filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12) in this civilrights action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, following the dismissal without prejudice of his original Complaint on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §1915A.¹ (Dkt. No. 9.) Named as Defendants in the Amended Complaint are Kristen M. Woodlock ("Woodlock"), in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health ("OMH"), for declaratory relief; Dr. Brian Belfi ("Belfi"), Director of Legal Affairs at Kirby Psychiatric Center, for declaratory relief in his official capacity and for monetary damages in his personal capacity; and Brian Fischer (Fischer"), former Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). (Dkt. No. 12 at ¶ 5.) Judge Mordue dismissed the claims against Defendant Fischer without prejudice on initial review and required Defendants Woodlock and Belfi to respond to the Amended Complaint.² (Dkt. No. 13.)

Defendants Woodlock and Belfi have now moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 21.) Plaintiff has opposed the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 25-28.) For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion be granted in part, and thatPlaintiff's § 1983 claim against Belfi for money damages for the violation of his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution be stayed pending resolution of the recommitment proceeding under Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20(14) presently pending in New York State Supreme Court.³

II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

On September 16, 1985, Plaintiff, then seventeen years old, stabbed his mother, father, and brother to death and killed an unrelated individual, Wayne Haun ("Haun"), with an automobile. (Dkt. No. 12 at ¶ 8.) A jury found Plaintiff not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in the killing of his father and brother and on the related weapons charges (Counts 1, 3, 5, and 7). Id. Plaintiff was found guilty in the deaths of his mother and Haun and on the related weapons charges (Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8). Id. Plaintiff was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years to life for the killings of his mother and Haun, and one year on the weapons charges. Id. at ¶ 9. At the sentencing, the Court stated that: "The Court's sentences under Counts 2, 4, 6 and 8 are to be executed first and compliance with those sentences shall be deemed to satisfy the statutorily required commitments under Counts 1, 3, 5, and 7." Id.

The convictions on Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 were reversed on appeal and the disposition on Counts 1, 3, 5, and 7 was left undisturbed. Id. at ¶ 9. At a retrial on Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 in 1992, Plaintiff was found guilty of manslaughter in the deaths of his mother and Haun and on therelated weapons charges. Id. at ¶ 10. On November 25, 1992, after the jury verdict on retrial and before re-sentencing, Plaintiff's counsel wrote to then Assistant Director of the Bureau of Forensic services for OMH, Richard Miraglia ("Miraglia"), informing him that he was in the process of preparing Plaintiff's pre-sentence memorandum and inquiring about Plaintiff's "actual status . . . specifically as to whether he is now free of Mental Hygiene, ets. (sic)."

Miraglia responded by letter of December 16, 1992, writing that "the Office of Mental Health has neither initiated nor is it aware of any pending applications pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 330.20."⁴ Id. at § 13. Miraglia also wrote that: "I direct your attention to the Sentence imposed by Judge McCarthy that directed Mr. Justice to be committed to OMH custody pursuant to the provisions of Article 16 of the NYS Correction law to satisfy the statutorily required commitments under Counts 1, 3, 5 and 7. Counts 1, 3, 5 and 7 refer to the charges for which Mr. Justice was found not responsible due to mental disease or defect . . . . Our records reflect that Mr. Justice received inpatient psychiatric care pursuant to Correction Law Article 16, Section 402 at Central New York Psychiatric Center." Id. According to Plaintiff, his counsel relied on the communication from Miraglia in preparing Plaintiff's pre-sentence memorandum as Miraglia knew he would. Id. at ¶14.

At Plaintiff's re-sentencing on January 14, 1993, he received sentences of a term of eight and one-third to twenty-five years on one of the manslaughter convictions and a term of five to fifteen years on the other, along with one year for each of the weapons charges. Id. at ¶ 15. Based upon his February 20, 1987, sentence and Miraglia's letter, Plaintiff believed that hisprison sentence satisfied all statutory commitment requirements attendant to his having been found not guilty in the deaths of his father and brother by reason of mental disease or defect. Id. at ¶ 16.

Plaintiff proceeded to serve his prison sentences, and for over twelve years, Plaintiff was afforded no rights or procedural safeguards under CPL § 330.20, and no one from OMH took any action under the provision with regard to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 17. During that period, Plaintiff was on out-patient status for in excess of three years while in the prison population, and according to Plaintiff, he could have received a discharge order under CPL § 330.20(13) had he been subject to processing under § 330.20. Id. at ¶ 17.

Plaintiff's impending parole in 2005 received considerable media attention and led to a public outcry. Id. at ¶ 18. As a result, Miraglia and others from OMH, acting in concert with the New York State Division of Parole, sought to resurrect Plaintiff's § 330.20 status. Id. On September 8, 2005, the day before Plaintiff's scheduled release on parole, OMH filed an application for a release order pursuant to § 330.20 and a five year order of conditions under the section. Id. The order of conditions was granted in Erie County Supreme Court on January 3, 2006. Id. at ¶ 19.

Plaintiff thereafter initiated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York to challenge the constitutionality of the imposition of § 330.20 status and an order of conditions on him. See John D. Justice v. Terry King, et al., 6:08-CV-06417-FPG-MWP (W.D.N.Y.) ("Justice v. King"). The Court takes judicial notice that in his Second Amended Complaint in Justice v. King, Plaintiff has asserted claims against Miraglia and former OMH Commissioner Hogan for violation of his substantive and proceduraldue process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by subjecting him to CPL § 330.20. (Justice v. King, Dkt. No. 414.) A motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint by Defendants Miraglia and Hogan, along with DOCCS employees Eugenio Russi and Thomas Tortora, is now pending in the Western District action. (Justice v. King, Dkt. Nos. 426, 448, 451.)

Plaintiff was returned to DOCCS custody on July 3, 2007, as the result of alleged parole violations. (Dkt. No. 12 at ¶ 23.) On February 23, 2011, while Plaintiff remained in DOCCS custody, the order of conditions issued under § 330.20 on January 3, 2006, was extended for five years by the New York State Supreme Court in Erie County. Id. at ¶ 24. During Plaintiff's incarceration for his parole violation, he was granted all of his good behavior allowances and was scheduled for conditional release from DOCCS on August 26, 2012. Id. at ¶ 25. OMH had not developed any discharge plans for Plaintiff and threatened him with a temporary confinement order ("TCO"), which caused Plaintiff to waive his conditional release on August 10, 2012. Id. at ¶ 26.

According to Plaintiff, after the use of TCOs was struck down as unconstitutional two months later in Robert T. v. Sproat, 955 N.Y.S.2d 134 (2d Dep't 2012)⁵, he attempted to apply for a conditional release from DOCCS pursuant to New York Penal Law § 70.40(1)(b) and New York Corrections Law § 206 on December 2, 2012. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff filed a grievance after DOCCS failed to respond to his request, and the grievance was denied at all levels. Id. at ¶ 28.

On February 14, 2013, Woodlock, as OMH Acting Commissioner, submitted arecommitment application with respect to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 29. The application was supported by the psychiatric examiner's affidavit of Defendant Belfi, in which Belfi averred, among other things, that Plaintiff suffered from an antisocial personality disorder and should be considered dangerously mentally ill, requiring involuntary commitment to a secure psychiatric facility. Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiff has alleged that Belfi knew or should have known that the United States Supreme Court had outlawed civil commitment based on an antisocial personality disorder. Id. at ¶ 31. Therefore, according to Plaintiff, Belfi's affidavit was fraudulent and submitted in order to cause Plaintiff irreparable harm and to wrongfully deprive him of liberty in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and subject him to...