Marozzi v. Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
QUENTIN A. MAROZZI,
Plaintiff,
9:25-CV-1072
v. 	(AJB/MJK)
SUPERINTENDENT OF AUBURN
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
QUENTIN A. MAROZZI
Plaintiff, pro se
24-B-5077
Mohawk Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 8451
Rome, NY 13440
ANTHONY J. BRINDISI
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Quentin A. Marozzi commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), together with an application to
proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."); Dkt. No. 2 ("IFP Application"). By
Decision and Order entered on September 10, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff's IFP
Application, reviewed the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and dismissed each of the asserted claims without prejudice for failure to
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 12

2
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. No. 4 ("September 2025 Order"). In
light of plaintiff's pro se status, he was afforded an opportunity to submit an amended
complaint. Id. at 16-18.
Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s amended complaint. Dkt. No. 6 ("Am. Compl.").
II. 	SUFFICIENCY OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. 	The Complaint and September 2025 Order
In his complaint, plaintiff asserted claims against certain individuals and groups
employed at Auburn Correctional Facility based on allegations that he was denied various
privileges and services during a prison labor strike. See generally, Compl. The complaint
named the following individuals and groups as defendants: (1) the Superintendent of Auburn
Correctional Facility; (2) Auburn Correctional Facility “Correctional Officers”; (3) Auburn
Correctional Facility “Medical Treatment Team”; and (4) Auburn Correctional Facility “Mental
Health Treatment Team.” See Compl. at 1-3
The complaint was construed to assert the following claims against the named
defendants: (1) First Amendment free exercise claims; (2) First Amendment free association
claims; (3) Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims; and (4) Eighth Amendment
conditions-of-confinement claims. See September 2025 Order at 5.
After reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b), the Court dismissed plaintiff's Section 1983 claims without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See September 2025 Order at 6-18.
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 12

3
B. 	Review of the Amended Complaint
Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is an inmate suing one or more
government employees, his amended complaint must be reviewed in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The legal standard governing the review
of a pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) was discussed
at length in the September 2025 Order and it will not be restated in this Decision and Order.
See September 2025 Order at 2-4.
The amended complaint is materially similar to, albeit more detailed than, the original
complaint. The following facts are set forth as alleged in the amended complaint.
Between February 19 and May 23, 2025, plaintiff was incarcerated at Auburn
Correctional Facility during a labor strike. Am. Compl. at 12. Prior to arriving at this facility,
plaintiff was incarcerated at Groveland Correctional Facility, where he received “daily mental
health meds, . . . was able to free[ly] participate in . . . Rastafaria contergation [sic] and . . .
were [sic] [a] crown[,] . . . have visits[,] . . . have [a special] diet due to high blood pressure
issues, . . . receive packages and commissary, . . . participate in recreational activity . . . send
out mail . . . and . . . receive mail, . . . go to court when called upon, . . . have open
communications with [his] attorney, . . . take showers and drink clean water, [and] . . . be
protected and safe from . . . harm.” Id.
At some point after February 19, 2025, plaintiff submitted “multiple communication
forms” and grievances to defendant Auburn Correctional Facility Superintendent Doe and
defendant Religious Coordinator Doe, requesting his religious crown “that was taken from
[him] upon entering the . . . facility” and complaining about not “be[ing] able to practice [his]
Rastafria [sic] religion.” Am. Compl. at 4, 10. Plaintiff also complained to the Superintendent
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 12

4
and wrote grievances about a lack of access to showers, clean water, recreation, visits,
packages, medication, mail, and consultation with a mental health professional. Id. at 4-6.
The Superintendent and Religious Coordinator failed to respond to plaintiff’s complaints, and
he “was told” after his fourth grievance that “all correctional officers, all administrative staff,
and most of the medical staff are on strike[.]” Id. at 4, 10.
At one point, plaintiff “missed court for visitations to speak to [his] children.” Am.
Compl. at 5. On another occasion, “correctional officers ‘gas[s]ed’ [plaintiff] and other
[inmates] when [they] were in [their] cells[,] causing [plaintiff] to choke and [his] eyes to burn
to the point [he] couldn’t open them[.]” Id. Although plaintiff “wrote another grievance”
regarding this matter and sent it to the Superintendent, it was “never . . . addressed.” Id.
Plaintiff’s “family and friends” attempted to visit him but were turned away at the facility
and “told by a correctional officer that visits were cancled [sic] until further notice.” Am.
Compl. at 6-7. Plaintiff was also denied access to a phone to “let them know what was
exactly going on” by “U.S. National Guard and the few correctional officer[s] that [were] on
post.” Id. at 7. At some point, plaintiff’s attorneys also unsuccessfully attempted to contact
him. Id. Plaintiff was denied a total of five visits between February 19 and May 23, 2025. Id.
at 11-12.
In addition to being deprived of outside contact, plaintiff was also denied access to “the
mental meds [he] was on[.]” Am. Compl. at 8. Plaintiff wrote to defendant Corrections
Captain John Doe, Superintendent Doe, and the “Grievance Program” regarding this
deprivation and other matters, but “no one answered” plaintiff or intervened to address the
wrongdoing. Id. at 7-8.
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 4 of 12

5
In addition to the aforementioned officials, the amended complaint names the following
groups as defendants: (1) “John Doe Correctional Officers”; (2) the Medical Treatment
Facility Team; and (3) the Mental Health Facility Team. See Am. Compl. at 1-2.
Liberally construed, the amended complaint asserts the following Section 1983 claims:
(1) First Amendment free exercise claims; (2) First Amendment free association claims; (3)
Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims; (4) Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect
claims; and (5) Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims.
Plaintiff seeks money damages. Am. Compl. at 13. For a more complete statement of
plaintiff's claims, reference is made to the amended complaint.
C. 	Analysis
1. Group Defendants
As with the original complaint, the amended complaint names certain groups of
officials collectively as defendants.
As noted in the September 2025 Order, “naming broad groups of individuals, without
any explanation as to how plaintiff interacted with any one of them, is insufficient to put any
official on notice as to how or when that person may have violated plaintiff’s constitutional
rights.” Id. at 7 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the September 2025 Order, plaintiff’s
Section 1983 claims against “John Doe Correctional Officers,” the Medical Treatment Facility
Team, and the Mental Health Facility Team are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 5 of 12

6
2. Section 1983 Claims Against the Religious Coordinator,
Superintendent, and Corrections Captain John Doe
The legal standard governing First Amendment free exercise claims, First Amendment
free association claims, and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims was discussed
at length in the September 2025 Order and will not be restated herein. See September 2025
Order at 9-16.
As with the original complaint, the amended complaint does not allege that plaintiff
ever spoke with the Religious Coordinator, Corrections Captain, or Superintendent of Auburn
Correctional Facility at any point during the labor strike. Rather, plaintiff alleges that he wrote
to these officials and forwarded them grievances on multiple occasions and never received a
response. At least with respect to past incidents of harm, such as officials denying plaintiff a
court visit or “gas[sing]” his cell, these allegations are insufficient to show personal
involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. See, e.g., Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 620
(2d Cir. 2020) (a plaintiff must “plead and prove the elements of the underlying constitutional
violation directly against the official without relying on a special test for supervisory liability”);
Braxton v. Bruen, No. 9:17-CV-1346 (BKS/ML), 2021 WL 4950257, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 25,
2021) ("Even before Tangreti, receipt by a supervisory official of a letter from an inmate,
without more, has been insufficient to establish the official's personal involvement in a § 1983
constitutional claim." (collecting cases)), vacated on other grounds by Braxton v. Bruen, No.
21-2795, 2023 WL 7478331 (2d Cir. Nov. 13, 2023); Tripathy v. Schneider, No. 21-CV-6392,
2021 WL 4504461, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2021) (dismissing Section 1983 claim against
Commissioner of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
and Governor of New York where complaint alleged only that these officials "failed to
respond" to plaintiff's complaints of wrongdoing, noting that "the failure to respond to letters
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 6 of 12

7
protesting unconstitutional actions and/or requesting an investigation is, without more,
insufficient to establish personal involvement"); Brown v. Montone, No. 17-CV-4618, 2018
WL 2976023, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2018) ("It is well-established that an allegation that an
official ignored a prisoner's letter of protest and request for an investigation of allegations
made therein is insufficient to hold that official liable for the alleged violations." (quoting Allah
v. Annucci, No. 16-CV-1841, 2017 WL 3972517, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017)); see also
Diaz v. Bowles, No. 20-CV-997, 2023 WL 2631809, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 24, 2023) (“A
conclusory allegation that a defendant or defendants created a policy or custom under which
unconstitutional practices occurred is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim.”);
Myers on behalf of Est. of Myers v. Davenport, No. 21-CV-0922 (LEK/CFH), 2022 WL
3017367, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 29, 2022) (“[A] plaintiff may establish a policy-making official's
personal involvement by, first, alleging facts from which it may be reasonably inferred the
official was responsible for making relevant policies, and thus there is a tangible connection
between their policymaking conduct and the alleged harm. . . . [and] [s]econd establish[ing]
the elements of the underlying claim directly against each defendant.”); Harnett v. Barr, 538
F. Supp. 2d 511, 524 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (“If the official is confronted with a violation that has
already occurred and is not ongoing, then the official will not be found personally responsible
for failing to ‘remedy’ a violation.”); cf. Burton v. Lynch, 664 F. Supp. 2d 349, 362 (S.D.N.Y.
2009) (“A superintendent cannot ‘remedy’ a violation of constitutional rights which has
already ceased by ordering some change in prison conditions.”).1
1 The amended complaint does not name as defendants the official(s) responsible for “gas[sing]” plaintiff’s cell
or denying him access to a scheduled court visit. Moreover, insofar as the court visit was canceled pursuant to
a facility policy implemented during the strike, the amended complaint does not allege that this policy was
unknown to plaintiff or his attorney in advance of the proceeding, or that plaintiff suffered any legal prejudice in
the proceeding as a result of the missed appearance.
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 7 of 12

8
Further, insofar as plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to showers and clean
water, the allegations in the amended complaint are entirely conclusory. Plaintiff does not,
for example, indicate how many showers he missed, the reason(s) why those showers were
missed, or why plaintiff believes the water suddenly become contaminated and/or unsafe to
drink during the strike. Perez v. Hawk, 302 F. Supp. 2d 9, 22 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (granting
motion to dismiss and dismissing Eighth Amendment claim because plaintiff failed to allege a
causal link between the water supply and his symptoms, and because plaintiff's “conclusory
allegations with respect to the water supply fail[ed] to ‘demonstrate that the conditions of his
confinement result in unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs' or
deprive[ ] him ‘of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities' ” (citing Anderson v.
Coughlin, 757 F.2d 33, 34-35 (2d Cir. 1985))); Dillon v. City of New York, No. 12-CV-7113,
2013 WL 6978959, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2013) (“Construing Plaintiff's allegations liberally,
the Court reads the Complaint to suggest that the alleged deprivation of shower access
occurred ‘many time[s].’ . . . Still, such vague and unadorned allegations must be dismissed
because there is no basis on which the Court could conclude that Plaintiff has alleged
plausibly that he was deprived of shower and toothpaste for a substantial period of time.”);
Banks v. Argo, No. 11-CV-4222, 2012 WL 4471585, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2012) (“Plaintiff
does not specify how long he was denied the right to shower or claim he had no other means
of cleaning himself. As a result, Plaintiff's threadbare allegation must fail.”). Thus, the Court
has no basis to plausibly infer that the shower and water issues posed an objectively serious
risk to plaintiff’s health.
Similarly, insofar as plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to medications and a
special diet, plaintiff does not indicate the nature of his special diet, how it differed from the
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 8 of 12

9
meals he received, the mental health medication he was prescribed, when he was prescribed
the medication, or the frequency with which he was supposed to consume this medication. In
the absence of such details, the Court has no basis to plausibly infer that depriving plaintiff of
medications and a special diet meal posed an objectively serious risk to plaintiff’s health.
Moreover, plaintiff acknowledges in his pleading that members of the National Guard,
a “few” corrections officials, and some medical professionals worked at Auburn Correctional
Facility during the strike. See Compl. at 4, 7. Yet the amended complaint does not include
any facts regarding (1) when these officials made rounds during the strike, if ever, or (2) what
efforts plaintiff made to communicate with these officials verbally or in writing regarding his
concerns. Plaintiff also does not allege that all showers, prescribed medications and medical
diets were unavailable to incarcerated individuals during the strike. Thus, the Court has no
basis to plausibly infer that plaintiff was unable to clean himself or drink water, and did not
receive a medical diet or prescribed medications during the labor strike as a result of
deliberate indifference, by the Religious Coordinator, Corrections Captain, or Superintendent
of Auburn Correctional Facility, to his well-being. See, e.g., Hood v. Itawamba County, Miss.,
819 F. Supp. 556, 566 (N.D. Miss. 1993) (“Evidence of understaffing, without more, is not
proof of official policy.” (citations omitted)); Gagne v. City of Galveston, 671 F. Supp. 1130,
1135 (S.D. Tex. 1987) (noting that understaffing may support a § 1983 action “only if more
complete funding and staffing were possible, and ... it was the deliberate intent of the policy
making official not to adequately fund and staff the jail, having in mind a gross indifference to
the medical needs of ... detainees”), aff'd, 851 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1986); Mosley v. Deperio,
No. 03-CV-6362, 2005 WL 2030738, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2005) (“[D]eliberate
indifference to inmates' health needs may be shown ... by proving that there are such
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 9 of 12

10
systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing ... that the inmate population is effectively denied
access to adequate medical care ....”); Clay v. D'Silva, No. 09-CV-1245, 2011 WL 1135939,
at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2011) (“The practical consequence of the state-wide shortage in
dental staff for DOCS, while unfortunate, was not a product of [the Dental Services Director’s]
conduct and cannot be characterized as deliberate indifference on her part.”), report and
recommendation adopted by 2011 WL 1135937 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2011).
Finally, insofar as plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to visits, outdoor
recreation, packages, commissary, religious services, and mail over a period of roughly three
months based on staffing issues, as with plaintiff’s medical prescriptions, the Court has no
basis to plausibly infer from the allegations in the amended complaint that the Religious
Coordinator, Corrections Captain, or Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility
deliberately denied plaintiff access to these privileges and services out of indifference to his
well-being or religious rights, or a desire to not properly fund the prison. Rather, once again,
it appears plaintiff was denied access to these privileges and services based solely on
staffing and related security issues.2
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the September 2025 Order, plaintiff’s
Section 1983 claims against the Religious Coordinator, Corrections Captain, and
Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
2 As with the original complaint, the amended complaint also does not allege any facts which plausibly suggest
that the privileges and services that plaintiff did not receive during the strike could have been safely provided
despite an alleged labor shortage.
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 10 of 12

11
D. 	Nature of the Dismissal
Although plaintiff was already afforded leave to amend his original complaint, the
amended complaint includes new allegations of wrongdoing related to plaintiff’s medical and
mental health conditions, medical diet, the denial of medication, and a “gas[sing]” incident. In
light of these new allegations, which do not appear to be dependent on staffing issues during
the labor strike, the Court cannot "rule out any possibility" that a second amended complaint
might overcome the pleading deficiencies identified herein. See Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav.
Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir. 1999). As a result, and in light of plaintiff's pro se status,
the Court will afford him the opportunity to file a second amended complaint limited to specific
incidents of wrongdoing unrelated to and/or not entirely dependent on staffing issues during
the labor strike, and asserted against officials who were personally involved in such
wrongdoing.
Any amended complaint filed by plaintiff must bear his original signature and must be
a complete pleading. Plaintiff is forewarned that, if he fails to submit a second amended
complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order, the Court will,
without further order, dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
III. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; and it is further
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 11 of 12

12
ORDERED that if plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action he must file a second
amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order as set
forth above; and it is further
ORDERED that upon the filing of a second amended complaint as directed above, the
Clerk shall return the file to this Court for further review; and it is further
ORDERED that in the event plaintiff fails to file a signed second amended complaint
within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order, the Clerk shall enter
judgment dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and for failure to comply with the terms of this Decision and Order; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 31, 2025
Utica, New York.
Case 9:25-cv-01072-AJB-MJK Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 Page 12 of 12