green
Positive treatment
published
Quoted verbatim 8×
85.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Cited for
At page 265 Dismissal of claims lacking alleged constitutional injury178 citing casesname-calling without “any appreciable injury” is not a constitutional violation
- Allah, No. 9:23-cv-00785 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2026). (The *4 Against this backdrop, the Court has considered each claim that a prison guard called Purcell names also did not of the allegations related to the search and considered the allege any appreciable injury and was…)
- Lesson v. Jane Doe / State Trooper, No. 1:25-cv-00188 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2025).(allegations of verbal harassment are insufficient to base a § 1983 claim if no specific injury is alleged)
- Cato v. Dietschler, No. 6:21-cv-06207 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2023).(The dismissal of the . . . claim [regarding the denial of pens] was proper because the complaint did not allege any injury stemming from the denial of pens on one occasion. In view of the apparent fact that Purcell has…)
- Allen v. Norvell, No. 7:21-cv-00213, 2022 WL 4479225 (W.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2022).(The claim that a prison guard called [plaintiff] names . . . did not allege a constitutional violation)
- Cameron v. Menard, No. 5:18-cv-00204 (D. Vt. Sept. 19, 2022).(The claim that a prison guard called [the plaintiff] names . . . did not allege any appreciable injury and was properly dismissed.)
- Delgado v. Annucci, No. 9:21-cv-00120 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021).(In this Circuit, allegations of verbal harassment are insufficient to base a § 1983 claim if no specific injury is alleged.)
- Jenkins v. NYC DOC Rikers Island, No. 1:18-cv-07024 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2020).(The claim that a prison guard called Purcell names also did not allege any appreciable injury and was properly dismissed.)
- Martinez v. DeMarco, No. 2:13-cv-01319 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2020).(claim that a prison guard called [the plaintiff] names . . . was properly dismissed)
- Walker, No. 3:26-cv-00217 (D. Conn. June 4, 2026).Conn. July 7, 2025) (citing Cole v. Fischer, 379 F. App’x 40, 43 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (“[V]erbal harassment, standing alone, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.”); Johnson v. Eggersdorf, 8 F. App’x 140, 143 (2d Cir.…
- Mejia, No. 3:25-cv-00694 (D. Conn. Dec. 29, 2025).See Cole v. Fischer, 379 F. App’x. 40, 43 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Verbal harassment, standing alone, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.”); Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that “rudeness and name- calling…
Show 164 more citing cases
- Crenshaw, No. 3:25-cv-00479 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2025).Purcell v. Couglin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986) (per curiam); see also Cole v. Fischer, 379 F. App’x 40, 43 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[V]erbal harassment, standing alone, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.”).
- Niphong, No. 1:25-cv-01194 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2025).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Larson v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., No. 1:25-cv-00792 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2025).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Huertas v. Guadarrama, No. 3:25-cv-00118 (D. Conn. July 7, 2025).(noting “[i]n this Circuit, allegations of verbal harassment are insufficient to base a § 1983 claim if no specific injury is alleged.)
- Jordan v. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:24-cv-00236 (D. Conn. July 3, 2025).(holding that verbal harassment and name calling, absent physical injury, are not constitutional violations cognizable under § 1983)
- Robbs v. Decapua, No. 3:25-cv-00074 (D. Conn. May 29, 2025).Because Plaintiff has not alleged additional information about this group, the Court considers this allegation in the context of his harassment claim, rather than as a separate claim. “rudeness and name-calling does not rise to the level o…
- Gibson v. Doe, No. 1:23-cv-09474 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025).(name-calling without “any appreciable injury” is not a constitutional violation)
- (PC) Valencia v. Martinez, No. 1:24-cv-01441 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2025).(allegations that prison guards called him names was 7 not sufficient to allege a constitutional violation)
- Aaron v. United States, No. 3:24-cv-00387 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2025).Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Montiel 321211 v. Johnson, No. 1:25-cv-00122, 2025 WL 807756 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2025).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Burns 380649 v. Ottawa Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 1:24-cv-01309 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2025).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Moon 956376 v. Mendez, No. 1:24-cv-01138, 2025 WL 314097 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2025).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Preston 235170 v. Hoffman, No. 2:24-cv-00179 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 22, 2024).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Bonham v. Fam. Outreach Ctr. Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01030 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2024).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Wright v. New York City Police Dep't, No. 1:24-cv-00623 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2024).(holding that name-calling without “any appreciable injury” did not violate inmate’s constitutional rights)
- Jessie 701078 v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., No. 2:22-cv-00054 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 3, 2024).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- (PC) Scott v. Rodriguez, No. 1:24-cv-00284 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2024).(allegations that prison guards called him names was 15 not sufficient to allege a constitutional violation)
- Cotton v. Noeth, No. 1:18-cv-01426 (W.D.N.Y. May 1, 2024).A “claim for relief may be stated under section 1983 if otherwise routine administrative decisions are made in retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.” Guill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192 , 194 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing P…
- McMillen Sulaymu-Bey v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, No. 1:22-cv-10097 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024).(holding that name-calling without “any appreciable injury” did not violate inmate’s constitutional rights)
- Iwala v. New York City Police Dep't, No. 1:23-cv-05078 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024).(holding that name-calling without “any appreciable injury” did not violate inmate’s constitutional rights)
- Nova v. Rocker, No. 6:23-cv-06170 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023).ECF No. 4 at 11 (citing Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986)).
- Zimmerman 925164 v. Piggott, No. 1:23-cv-00303 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 10, 2023).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Walker 651851 v. Baker, No. 2:22-cv-00216 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2023).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Ross v. The State of New York, No. 9:19-cv-01207 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2023).Finally, "rudeness and name-calling" of the type alleged by Plaintiff "does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation." Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1…
- Lundy 409661 v. Otto, No. 2:22-cv-00042 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2022).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Williamson v. Lafayette Par. Corr. Ctr., No. 6:21-cv-03880 (W.D. La. June 27, 2022).See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193-94 (5th Cir.1997), (verbal abuse or harassment by a prison guard does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, citing Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271 , 274 n. 4 (5th Cir.1993); see also Adkins v…
- Hunter v. Butler, No. 1:21-cv-00212 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2022).(affirming dismissal of claim because no “appreciable injury” resulted from name-calling)
- Cole 232716 v. Smith, No. 2:22-cv-00003 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2022).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Johnson v. Barone, No. 3:21-cv-01514 (D. Conn. Feb. 4, 2022).Feb. 17, 2021) (citing Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986)).
- (PC) Ackerson v. Elliott, No. 2:21-cv-02205 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2022).(allegations that 14 prison guards called him names was not sufficient to allege a constitutional violation)
- Mejia v. Kurtzenacker, No. 3:21-cv-01222 (D. Conn. Jan. 3, 2022).(holding that name-calling without “any appreciable injury” did not violate inmate's constitutional rights)
- Bacon v. Evans, No. 7:20-cv-06337, 2021 WL 5643038 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2021).(upholding dismissal of “claim[] that prison guards called [the plaintiff] names,” because this claim “did not allege any appreciable injury)
- Taylor 940436 v. Davis, No. 1:21-cv-00276, 2021 WL 4145628 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2021).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Wade 600628 v. Riker, No. 1:21-cv-00672 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 23, 2021).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Johnson 343032 v. Silliman, No. 1:21-cv-00684 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2021).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Johnson 343032 v. Mikel, No. 1:21-cv-00685 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2021).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Johnson 343032 v. Schafer, No. 1:21-cv-00092 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2021).See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Johnson v. Cook, No. 3:19-cv-01464, 2021 WL 2741723 (D. Conn. July 1, 2021).That is because being “called . . . names” by a prison guard, in and of itself, does not cause an “appreciable injury.” Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986).
- Jones v. D.O.C.C.S., No. 1:20-cv-01682 (W.D.N.Y. May 12, 2021). Rosales v. Kikendall, 677 F. Supp. 2d 643, 648 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Purcell v. Coughlin, 790 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir. 1986)); Carpio v. Walker, 1997 WL 642543 , at *6 (N.D.N.Y.
- Shepard v. Med. Nurses/Doctors, No. 7:19-cv-00669 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2021).Feb. 14, 2003) (“[T]o the extent plaintiff alleges that [the prison doctor] verbally abused him or harassed him ... these allegations fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted.”) (citing cases); Johnson v. Bendheim, No. 00 Civ.…
- Cole v. Fischer, 379 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2010).unpublished
- Taylor v. Conway, 381 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2010).unpublished
- Gill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1987).published
- Black v. Cuomo, 101 F.3d 681 (2d Cir. 1996).unpublished
- Jason B. Nicholas v. Dominic J. Mantello, Superintendent, Coxsackie Corr. Facility, 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1996).unpublished
- John Andrew Cuoco v. Kenneth Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000).published
- Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2001).published
- Jerry L. Luster v. B. Campbell Smoot, No. M2000-02191-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2001).published
- Cusamano v. Sobek, 604 F. Supp. 2d 416 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).published
- Nash v. McGinnis, 585 F. Supp. 2d 455 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).published
- Banks v. Mannoia, 890 F. Supp. 95 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).published
- Abney v. Jopp, 655 F. Supp. 2d 231 (W.D.N.Y. 2009).published
- 5 Borough Pawn, LLC v. City of New York, 640 F. Supp. 2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).published
- Brown v. Croce, 967 F. Supp. 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).published
- Vega v. Artus, 610 F. Supp. 2d 185 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).published
- Smith v. O'connor, 901 F. Supp. 644 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).published
- Aziz Zarif Shabazz v. Pico, 994 F. Supp. 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).published
- Harris v. Lord, 957 F. Supp. 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).published
- Allah v. Poole, 506 F. Supp. 2d 174 (W.D.N.Y. 2007).published
- Ramirez v. Holmes, 921 F. Supp. 204 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).published
- Haussman v. Fergus, 894 F. Supp. 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).published
- Pendleton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).published
- Baker v. Zlochowon, 741 F. Supp. 436 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).published
- Roseboro v. Gillespie, 791 F. Supp. 2d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).published
- Auleta v. LaFrance, 233 F. Supp. 2d 396 (N.D.N.Y. 2002).published
- Harris v. Keane, 962 F. Supp. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).published
- Rivera v. Goord, 119 F. Supp. 2d 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).published
- Greene v. Mazzuca, 485 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).published
- Cotz v. Mastroeni, 476 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).published
- Montero v. Crusie, 153 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).published
- Jean-Laurent v. Wilkerson, 438 F. Supp. 2d 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).published
- DiStiso Ex Rel. DiStiso v. Town of Wolcott, 750 F. Supp. 2d 425 (D. Conn. 2010).published
- Jordan v. Fischer, 773 F. Supp. 2d 255 (N.D.N.Y. 2011).published
- Rosales v. Kikendall, 677 F. Supp. 2d 643 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).published
- Jones v. Harris, 665 F. Supp. 2d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).published
- Warburton v. Goord, 14 F. Supp. 2d 289 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).published
- McCoy v. Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).published
- Webster v. Fischer, 694 F. Supp. 2d 163 (N.D.N.Y. 2010).published
- Gill v. Smith, 283 F. Supp. 2d 763 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).published
- Williams v. Dubray, 557 F. App'x 84 (2d Cir. 2014).unpublished
- Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2015).published
- Ronald Beal v. Brian Foster, 803 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2015).published
- Smith v. Graham, 684 F. App'x 13 (2d Cir. 2017).unpublished
- Hardy v. Daly, No. 17-2906 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2018).unpublished
- Gerard v. City of New York, 843 F. App'x 380 (2d Cir. 2021).unpublished
- Animashaun v. Regner, No. 20-863-pr (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2021).unpublished
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000).published
- Johnson v. Eggersdorf, 8 F. App'x 140 (2d Cir. 2001).unpublished
- Hendricks, 20 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2001).unpublished
- Lee v. Mackay, 29 F. App'x 679 (2d Cir. 2002).unpublished
- Richard v. Fischer, 38 F. Supp. 3d 340 (W.D.N.Y. 2014).published
- Banks v. Annucci, 48 F. Supp. 3d 394 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).published
- Little v. Mun. Corp., 51 F. Supp. 3d 473 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).published
- Milo v. City of New York, 59 F. Supp. 3d 513 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).published
- Barnes v. Cnty. of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696 (W.D.N.Y. 2015).published
- Ali v. Connick, 136 F. Supp. 3d 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).published
- Lopez v. Cipolini, 136 F. Supp. 3d 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).published
- Burroughs v. Petrone, 138 F. Supp. 3d 182 (N.D.N.Y. 2015).published
- Banks v. Cnty. of Westchester, 168 F. Supp. 3d 682 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).published
- Holland v. City of New York, 197 F. Supp. 3d 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).published
- Perez v. Ponte, 236 F. Supp. 3d 590 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).published
- Stone v. New York City Dep't of Homeless Servs., 159 F. App'x 324 (2d Cir. 2005).unpublished
- Felder v. Filion, 368 F. App'x 253 (2d Cir. 2010).unpublished
- Feldman v. Lyons, 852 F. Supp. 2d 274 (N.D.N.Y. 2012).published
- Vogelfang v. Capra, 889 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).published
- Mateo v. Fischer, 682 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).published
- Randle v. Alexander, 960 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).published
- Savino v. Town of Se., 983 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).published
- Billups v. New York State, 885 F. Supp. 38 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).published
- (PC) Ruiz v. Lucas, No. 2:19-cv-00419 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2021).
- Conquistador v. Hannah, No. 3:19-cv-01293 (D. Conn. Sept. 12, 2019).
- Whitaker v. Campbell, No. 3:19-cv-01357 (D. Conn. Nov. 4, 2019).
- Jackson v. Moochie, No. 3:19-cv-01057 (D. Conn. Dec. 3, 2019).
- Morgan v. Semple, No. 3:16-cv-00225 (D. Conn. Feb. 24, 2020).
- Nicholson v. Ferreira, No. 3:20-cv-01214 (D. Conn. Feb. 1, 2021).
- Belton v. Wydra, No. 3:17-cv-02006 (D. Conn. Mar. 18, 2021).
- Sentementes v. Lamont, No. 3:20-cv-01826 (D. Conn. May 10, 2021).
- Burton v. Salerno, No. 3:20-cv-01926 (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2021).
- Richard v. Martin, No. 3:20-cv-01354 (D. Conn. Oct. 6, 2022).
- Salami 879045 v. Niemiec, No. 1:20-cv-01100 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2021).
- Jacobs v. New York State Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, No. 1:19-cv-05980 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2020).
- Perez v. Donahue, No. 9:19-cv-00722 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2019).
- Towns v. Stannard, 431 F. Supp. 3d 44 (N.D.N.Y. 2019).published
- Matthews v. Cuomo, No. 9:17-cv-00503 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2020).
- Carter v. New York State Corr. Officer McPherson, No. 9:20-cv-00491 (N.D.N.Y. July 30, 2020).
- Borges v. Schenectady Cnty. Jail, No. 9:20-cv-00245 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2020).
- Calderon v. Annucci, No. 9:20-cv-00645 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2020).
- Burgos v. Bell, No. 9:22-cv-01327 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2023).
- Bradshaw v. Marshall, No. 9:21-cv-00826 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2023).
- Akinlawon v. Mayo, No. 9:24-cv-00017 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2024).
- Dadaille v. Coxsackie Corr. Facility, No. 9:23-cv-01583 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2024).
- Washington-Steele v. Perez, No. 1:18-cv-06894 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2019).
- Jamiel v. Fries, No. 7:17-cv-07172 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2019).
- Dixon v. Fishkill Corr. Facility, No. 7:17-cv-01123 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2019).
- Walker v. Fierro, No. 7:17-cv-05245 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2019).
- Salaam v. Morgan, No. 1:19-cv-11121 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2020).
- Harper v. Karabeles, No. 7:18-cv-02647 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2020).
- Coston v. NYS DOCCS, No. 1:20-cv-00350 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2020).
- Lewis v. Ellen, No. 7:17-cv-08101 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020).
- Bonie v. Annucci, No. 1:20-cv-02409 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020).
- Thomas v. Martin-Gibbons, No. 1:19-cv-07695, 2020 WL 5026884 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020).
- Castillo v. Hart, No. 1:20-cv-06148 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020).
- Keesh v. Quick, No. 7:19-cv-08942, 2021 WL 639530 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2021).
- Bacon v. Reed, No. 1:20-cv-05993 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2021).
- Maldonado v. Gunsett, No. 7:21-cv-03719 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2021).
- Camacho v. Potter, No. 7:21-cv-06180 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2021).
- Smith v. The State of New York, No. 1:23-cv-07613 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2023).
- Stratton v. Narcise, No. 7:23-cv-02152 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2023).
- Estrada v. Eric M. Taylor Ctr. Warden, No. 1:23-cv-11321 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2024).
- Torres v. Wellpath, No. 1:23-cv-10602 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2024).
- Culbreth v. Wellpath, No. 1:24-cv-00090 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024).
- Kilgore v. Baxter, No. 1:19-cv-00746 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2020).
- Riley v. Fischer, No. 1:13-cv-00331 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2020).
- Occupy Buffalo v. City of Buffalo, No. 1:13-cv-00407 (W.D.N.Y. May 12, 2020).
- Santos v. Wood, No. 1:20-cv-00721 (W.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020).
- Fitzak v. Annucci, No. 1:21-cv-00298 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2021).
- Cromwell v. Hendel, No. 1:20-cv-00317 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2022).
- Collier v. Edgel, No. 3:21-cv-00220 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 21, 2021).
- Kister v. Ellis (INMATE 2), No. 2:20-cv-00827 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 21, 2020).
- Baltas v. Dones, No. 3:22-cv-00038 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2022).
- Bradshaw v. Piccolo, 772 F. Supp. 3d 331 (W.D.N.Y. 2025).published
- Cartagena v. Uhler, No. 9:25-cv-00504 (N.D.N.Y. June 25, 2025).
- Lindsey, No. 7:25-cv-00318 (W.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2026).
- Lora, No. 9:26-cv-00369 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2026).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hank PURCELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Com. Tom COUGHLIN, Warden Dominic Montello, Edward Abbott, Dolores Weztherbee, William Reisdorf, Carl Berg and Guard Luczrelli, Defendants-Appellees
v.
Com. Tom COUGHLIN, Warden Dominic Montello, Edward Abbott, Dolores Weztherbee, William Reisdorf, Carl Berg and Guard Luczrelli, Defendants-Appellees
960, Docket 85-2251.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 13, 1986.
Published opinion
Richard L. Klein, New York City (Willkie Farr & Gallagher, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant., Lisa Margaret Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of N.Y. (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y., Robert Hermann, Sol. Gen., Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Sol. Gen., State of N.Y., Albany, N.Y., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Kaufman, Mansfield, Meskill, Per Curiam.
Cited by 180 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Hank Purcell, Jr. appeals from a judgment dismissing his pro se complaint for compensatory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). Applying our reasoning in Washington v. James, 782 F.2d 1134 (2d Cir.1986), we hold that the complaint adequately stated causes of action under section 1983 for interference with Purcell’s incoming and outgoing mail and for retaliation against him for commencing this litigation.
In a complaint dated August 8, 1984, Purcell claimed that various prison officials (1) between March 9, 1984 and August 8, 1984 denied him periodicals that he was entitled to receive; (2) on July 26, 1984 interfered with his outgoing personal and legal mail; (3) on July 25, 1984 called him names; (4) on July 25, 1984 denied him the right to purchase pens; and (5) put him on Central Monitoring Case (CMC) status in retaliation for seeking to vindicate his legal rights. Purcell’s complaint named the commissioner of the New York Department of Correctional Services, the superintendent, program coordinator, commissary clerk, two mail room clerks and a guard at the Alden Correctional Facility in Alden, New York, where Purcell was then incarcerated.
Six of the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Purcell filed several sets of lengthy responding papers which attempted to clarify the claims made in the complaint. These papers also alleged that various parties at several different institutions had punished Purcell for his legal efforts and denied him proper medical treatment.
By decision and order dated August 2, 1985, the district court summarily[*265] dismissed Purcell’s complaint with respect to all claims and defendants. Addressing Purcell’s claims that prison guards called him names and denied him pens, the court stated that the name calling claim did not allege a constitutional violation and that the denial of pens claim was refuted by Purcell’s writing to the court on several occasions. The dismissal of the latter claim was proper because the complaint did not allege any injury stemming from the denial of pens on one occasion. In view of the apparent fact that Purcell has not suffered harm from the denial, even liberal pleading rules do not suggest that such an allegation was implicit in the complaint. The claim that a prison guard called Purcell names also did not allege any appreciable injury and was properly dismissed. See McCann v. Coughlin, 698 F.2d 112, 126 (2d Cir.1983).
The district court’s judgment was also correct insofar as it dismissed those portions of the retaliation and denial of medical treatment claims that were directed at persons not named in the original complaint. Purcell’s prolix allegations about the denial of medical treatment do not meet even the most liberal pleading requirements and were properly dismissed for, among other reasons, failure properly to join or serve parties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5).
The district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Washington v. James, 782 F.2d 1134 (2d Cir.1986), when it decided the motion to dismiss Purcell’s claims of violations of his right to send mail and receive periodicals. In Washington, we held that even two alleged instances of mail interference were sufficient to suggest a continuing activity, and therefore reversed a grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 782 F.2d at 1139. That case controls here and requires us to reverse the dismissal of the claims relating to interference with Purcell’s outgoing and incoming mail.
Purcell’s complaint also stated that prison officials placed him on CMC status in retaliation for asserting his legal rights. Accepting this allegation as true, as we must for purposes of this motion to dismiss, it states a claim for relief. See Mawhinney v. Henderson, 542 F.2d 1, 3 (2d Cir.1976).
In remanding this case, we note that the prayer for injunctive relief may still properly be dismissed on mootness grounds because Purcell is no longer incarcerated at the Alden Correctional Facility. See Washington, 782 F.2d at 1137. We make no suggestion as to the proper disposition of a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, should defendants make one.
The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.