Johnson v. Bruen

• Decision Date: 08 October 2020
• Docket Number: 529022
• Citation: 131 N.Y.S.3d 740,187 A.D.3d 1294
• Parties: Johnathan JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Kevin BRUEN, as Deputy Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

187 A.D.3d 1294
131 N.Y.S.3d 740

Johnathan JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
Kevin BRUEN, as Deputy Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

529022

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: September 9, 2020
Decided and Entered: October 8, 2020

131 N.Y.S.3d 741

Johnathan Johnson, Malone, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Allyson B. Levine of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Colangelo, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ryba, J.), entered March 27, 2019 in Albany County, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, commenced this action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against defendants — the Deputy Commissioner and Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision — alleging that they violated his rights to access the courts and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. According to plaintiff's amended complaint, he was unable to file timely legal papers and meet court-ordered deadlines when defendants denied him further advances on his delinquent inmate account for photocopies and postage in contravention of certain prison regulations governing privileged correspondence and the collection of monies due from inmates. Prior to serving an answer, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of

131 N.Y.S.3d 742

action. Supreme Court granted the motion, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

"On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a claim, we must afford the complaint a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the pleading as true, confer on the nonmoving party the benefit of every possible inference and determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( McFadden v. Amodio, 149 A.D.3d 1282, 1283, 52 N.Y.S.3d 538 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see CPLR 3211[a][7] ; Duffy v. Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d 1053, 1054, 124 N.Y.S.3d 110 [2020] ; Szydlowski v. Town of Bethlehem, 162 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 78 N.Y.S.3d 454 [2018] ). "Although this is a liberal standard, it will not save allegations that consist of bare legal conclusions or factual claims that are flatly contradicted by documentary evidence or are inherently incredible" ( Goldberg v. Elia, 174 A.D.3d 1214, 1215, 105 N.Y.S.3d 604 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], appeal dismissed 34 N.Y.3d 1174, 123 N.Y.S.3d 559, 146 N.E.3d 524 [2020] ).

Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and according every possible inference to the benefit of plaintiff, we agree with Supreme Court that plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7). "In order to establish a violation of a right of access to courts, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant caused ‘actual injury,’ ... i.e., took or was responsible for...