In contrast, post-conviction inmates challenging the conditions of their confinement would be required to show wantonness on the part of a prison official or that the "alleged conditions were so inhumane as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment." Harris v. Westchester County Dep't of Corr., No 06 Civ. 2011 (RJS), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28372, at *18-19 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008) (citing Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 169 (2d Cir. 2007)). a. Overcrowded Living Conditions
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 against a defendant in their individual capacity, a plaintiff must allege that โ(1) the Individual Defendant[] [was] acting under color of state law, and (2) the Individual Defendant['s] conduct deprived [plaintiff] of a constitutional or a federal statutory right.โ Bermudez v. City of New York, 783 F.Supp.2d 560, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-cv-02011 (RJS), 2008 WL 953616, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008) (โProof of an individual defendant's personal involvement in the alleged wrong is, of course, a prerequisite to his liability on a claim for damages under ยง 1983.โ (quoting Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir. 2001))). To prove a defendant's personal involvement, โa plaintiff must plead and prove โthat each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.'โ Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 618 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676).
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2023) (alterations in original) (quoting Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-CV-2011, 2008 WL 953616, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008)); see also Roseboro v. Gillespie, 791 F.Supp.2d 353, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that prisoners โdo not have a due process right to a thorough investigation of grievancesโ (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Relatedly, allegations about events โafter a constitutional violation has already occurredโ do not establish personal involvement in the underlying violation, assuming there is one.
โ[I]nmate grievance programs created by state law are not required by the Constitution, and consequently[,] allegations that prison officials violated those procedures [do] not give rise to a cognizable ยง 1983 claim.โ Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-CV-2011, 2008 WL 953616, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, second alteration in original). Thus, prisoners โdo not have a due process right to a thorough investigation of grievances.โ Roseboro v. Gillespie, 791 F.Supp.2d 353, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Torres v. Mazzuca, 246 F.Supp.2d
To establish personal liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant was โpersonally or directly involved in the violation,โ Simpson v. Town of Warwick Police Dep't, 159 F.Supp.3d 419, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06 Civ. 2011 (RJS), 2008 WL 953616, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008))-that is, that there was โpersonal participation by one who has knowledge of the facts that rendered the conduct illegal,โ Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F.3d 146, 155 (2d Cir. 2001); accord Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 484 (2d Cir. 2006) (โIt is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under ยง 1983.
) However, โby alleging [that Defendant Spaulding] received [Plaintiff's] grievance and [responded to] it in writing-and by attaching the purported written [response] to the complaint-[P]laintiff[] ha[s] plausibly alleged [Defendant Spaulding's] personal involvement here.โ Alvarado v. Westchester County, 22 F.Supp.3d 208, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (emphasis in original); see also Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-CV-2011, 2008 WL 953616, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008) (denying motion to dismiss as to prison supervisor who received and acted upon plaintiff's grievances). Thus, Plaintiff has alleged Defendant Spaulding's personal involvement.
783 F.Supp.2d at 575; see also Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06 CIV. 2011 (RJS), 2008 WL 953616, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008) (โto state a claim for damages under Section 1983, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendants were personally or directly involved in the violation, that is, that there was personal participation by one who had knowledge of the facts that rendered the conduct illegalโ (citation, quotation marks, and alteration marks omitted)).
โRather, in the event that prison officials ignore a grievance that raises constitutional claims, the proper avenue to seek relief is . . . directly petitioning the government for redress of his claims.โ Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-CV-2011, 2008 WL 953616, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008) (collecting cases). Consequently, โcourts regularly dismiss claims brought to remedy alleged violations of inmate grievance procedures.
"The First Amendment protects a prisoner's right to meaningful access to the courts and to petition the government for the redress of grievances." Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-CV-2011 (RJS), 2008 WL 953616, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008). District courts have explained that:
To state a claim under ยง 1983 against individuals, a "plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate the defendants were personally or directly involved in the violation, that is, that there was 'personal participation by one who ha[d] knowledge of the facts that rendered the conduct illegal.'" Harris v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., No. 06 Civ. 2011, 2008 WL 953616, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F.3d 146, 155 (2d Cir. 2001)). An official's personal involvement may be shown by evidence that he: