Opinion
9:20-cv-00570 (BKS/CFH)
09-13-2021
LEE WOODS, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, JAMES O'GORMAN, Deputy Commissioner for Correctional Facilities, JOSEPH BELLNIER, former DOCCS Deputy Commissioner for Correctional Facilities, CHRISTOPHER MILLER, Superintendent of Great Meadow, DAVID ROCK, former Superintendent of Great Meadow, DALE ARTUS, Superintendent of Attica, JOSEPH NOETH, former Acting Superintendent of Attica, RAYMOND COVENY, Superintendent of Elmira, DONALD VENETTOZZI, Director of DOCCS Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Program, ALBERT PRACK, former Director of DOCCS Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Program, JOHN OR JANE DOES 1-5, members of the DOCCS SHMC at Great Meadow, JOHN OR JANE DOES 6-10, members of the DOCCS SHMC at Attica, and JOHN OR JANE DOES 11-15, members of the DOCCS SHMC at Elmira, Defendants.
For Plaintiff: James D. Arden Caitlin N. Matheny Cassandra Liu Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 For Defendants Annucci, O'Gorman, Bellnier, Miller, Rock, Artus, Noeth, Coveny, Venettozzi, and Prack: Letitia James Attorney General of the State of New York Andrew W. Koster Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel The Capitol Albany, NY 12224
Appearances:
For Plaintiff: James D. Arden Caitlin N. Matheny Cassandra Liu Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019
For Defendants Annucci, O'Gorman, Bellnier, Miller, Rock, Artus, Noeth, Coveny, Venettozzi,
and Prack: Letitia James Attorney General of the State of New York Andrew W. Koster Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel The Capitol Albany, NY 12224
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Brenda K. Sannes U.S. District Judge
For the reasons discussed at the September 13, 2021 telephone conference, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 78) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against Defendants Prack, Rock, and Artus based on the statute of limitations is DENIED without prejudice because the Court does not have enough information before it to take judicial notice of the employment dates of these Defendants under Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); the parties have not addressed whether the statute of limitations was tolled while Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, Gonzalez v. Hasty, 651 F.3d 318, 323-24 (2d Cir. 2011); and Defendants have not addressed the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine, Lucente v. County of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284, 310 (2d Cir. 2020);
Defendants' motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims against Defendant Annucci in his individual capacity on the ground that the First Amended Complaint does not adequately allege his personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations is GRANTED, and the claims against Annucci in his individual capacity are dismissed;
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act claims is GRANTED, and those claims are dismissed; and Defendants' motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.