Opinion
# 2015-049-016 Claim No. 124749 Motion No. M-85922 Cross-Motion No. CM-85986
02-25-2015
WILLIAM CRENSHAW v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
William Crenshaw, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
The Court dismissed an inmate's claim alleging denial of access to the Courts.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-049-016 |
| Claimant(s): | WILLIAM CRENSHAW |
| Claimant short name: | CRENSHAW |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124749 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85922 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-85986 |
| Judge: | DAVID A. WEINSTEIN |
| Claimant's attorney: | William Crenshaw, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 25, 2015 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
By claim filed July 25, 2014, claimant William Crenshaw, an inmate at Southport Correctional Facility ("Southport") proceeding pro se, alleges that defendant State of New York denied him access to the Courts. Specifically, Crenshaw asserts that while briefing a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL § 440.10, he sought to file and serve a Supplemental Affidavit in Reply and Objection with Memorandum of Law to the State's answering affirmation. According to the claim, he gave this document to prison staff for service on June 10, 2014, but it was held by a clerk until June 25. In the interim, on June 24, Supreme Court denied the motion.
Claimant now moves for summary judgment, supporting the motion with his own affidavit and various documents (Motion No. M-85922). Defendant State of New York cross moves to dismiss the claim under CPLR 3211(a)(2), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It argues that this Court cannot hear claims for denial of access to the courts, which is a species of due process claim over which this Court has no jurisdiction (Aff. in Opp. ¶ 3).
The parties' submissions provide information that is helpful in understanding the atmospherics of the claim, although not directly relevant to the outcome of the motion. To wit: (1) claimant's section 440 motion is the fourth he had brought, and it was denied because he could have raised the arguments made on his motion on direct appeal (Cl. Ex. 3 at 2); (2) in a misbehavior report appended to his own pleading, the correctional facility clerk states that Crenshaw had improperly sought to mail his submission with stamps in his possession, a violation of prison rules which bar possession of such stamps by inmates who had previously received numerous advances to buy postage (Cl. Ex. 2); and (3) this is one of approximately 67 actions claimant has had pending in various courts (Aff. in Opp. ¶ 8).
But all this is of no moment, since the present action is without legal basis in any case. The right of "access to the courts in and of itself is not a right protected by the Constitution" (Matter of Colton v Riccobono, 67 NY2d 571, 576 [1986]). Rather, such access has a constitutional dimension "only when the right sought to be asserted is one recognized as carrying a preferred status in the constitutional sense, and so entitled to special protection" (id.). The present allegations, concerning Crenshaw's efforts to file supplemental papers in his fourth collateral attack on a conviction, do not remotely meet this standard.
Moreover, no claim under the federal constitution may be brought in this Court, as such is properly the subject of an action under 42 USC § 1983 against individual State officials (see Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 498 [2d Dept 2001], citing Cavanaugh v Doherty, 243 AD2d 92, 96 [3d Dept 1998]). Nor would this claim fall within the "narrow remedy" available for state constitutional violations, even if the claim could be read as properly pleading such a violation (see Martinez v City of Schenectady (97 NY2d 78, 83 [2001]). When there is "an adequate remedy in an alternate forum" a constitutional tort claim for damages against the State is both "unnecessary and inappropriate" (Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1150 [3d Dept 2009]). Here claimant had the alternate remedy of filing a prison grievance to challenge the delay in his mail - and claimant's papers make clear he did so (see Cl. Ex. 8). Further, if claimant had a supplemental affidavit that would have presented new evidence rendering his section 440.10 motion meritorious (and that was not available to him in his initial submission), then he could have moved to reargue on that basis, with any role prison authorities played in holding up his submission as good cause for delay. And any viable claim for damages could have been brought via a section 1983 action in federal court. In light of such alternative remedies, claimant would have no damages action in this Court, even if his claim could be construed as one brought under the New York State Constitution (see Campbell v State of New York, UID No. 2014-038-101 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Feb. 7, 2014] [no claim for access to the courts in Court of Claims arises out of claim for alleged role of prison authorities in obstructing service of papers]).
Finally, while Crenshaw claims that the State engaged in some sort of fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment (see Cl. ¶ 21), he makes no allegations which would sustain such a claim.
In light of the foregoing, the State's cross motion no. CM-85986 is hereby granted and claim no. 124749 is dismissed. Claimant's motion for summary judgment (M-85922) is denied as moot.
February 25, 2015
Albany, New York
DAVID A. WEINSTEIN
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, Affidavit in Support and annexed Exhibits.
2. Defendant's Notice of Cross Motion, Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Cross Motion, Memorandum of Law and annexed exhibits.