Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

* r is » . S
/ ~ 5. at , ~i,~;,,u,,i,...; $.
,, I ~ A ;... .. • • 6·g..(..v- [9»)_*"]
Jrle °·*~e~i
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
gy; gm I Q 5;, ITOEIITI-IE SECOND CIRCUIT _
_ _; __j _- -. _ _ SUMMARY ORDER
THIS SUMMARY. NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER ‘
AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER ·
COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER " i
COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY A
CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the i
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th i
day of October, two thousand and live. i
PRESENT: HON. JoN o. NEWMAN, @5%; -·.-r . _;J=;:;;~; ,____ i
HON. SONIA soroMAYoR, ‘l“‘‘’‘t ti &s.éY1€`;i;;i a·re· —#~»:;i,;g¤._.£.g ~-~... _ A
Circuit Judges, _ \`i-5 i
HON. GEORGE E. DANIELS, ”%1.QC[¢;.l 5 2005 ua} i
District Judge} ‘ q"gg,,,!,F I _ i
Y
""*·*·" l
Camell Hunnicutt, ` I
P[aintWAppellant, \
v. No. 04-1565-pr
John J. Armstrong, Larry Myers, Thomas Coates, Christine I
Whidden, Michael Lajoie, William F aneuftQ Maurice Butler,
Kim Weir, Patricia Wollenhaupt, Saundra Katz Feinberg, Paul ‘
Chaplin, Tom Latier, Irene Wooven, Kevin Power, Peter
Matos, Jack Tokarz, y
Defendants-Appellees, ,
I
For Appellant: CARNELL HUNNICUTT, Cheshire, CT. i
For Appellees: ANN E. LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General i
(Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of
Connecticut), Hartford, Ct. i
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED AND
DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
···—··— ·····-————-— I
° The Honorable George B. Daniels, of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
I )
ISSUED AS MANDA :
-»» DEC 8 2005 `“"` K

§§;E;=E;.*=;.E?~·n‘..—E*·;,-·..?E.E-e Q .. . .. - - . .
_

"'W W `“‘W
, ' ` _’ Case 3:03-cv-00627-PCD Document 58 Filed 12/19/2005 Page 2 of 3 I
it -‘ O O
(Dorsey, J.) is AFFIRMED in part, and VACATED and REMANDED in part.
Plaintiffiappellant Carnell I-Iunnicutt ("Hunnicutt”), pro se, appeals from the judgment
dismissing his civil rights action for, inter alia, failing to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case, its relevant i
procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
We find that Hunnicutt adequately alleged a right to privacy claim, even through he did I
not identify the Ninth Amendment or any other amendment as the source of his claim. In faulting i
Humricutt for not citing the Ninth Amendment, the District Court demanded far more than the _
"short and plain statement of the claim" required by Rule 8. We have held that the liberal i
pleading requirements of Rule 8 do not permit dismissal for "‘failure in a complaint to cite a
statute, or to cite the correct one . . . ,’” Northrop v. Hojfman of Simsbwy, Inc., 134 F.3d 41, 46 i
(2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Albert v. Corovano, 851 F.2d 561, 571 n.3 (2d Cir. 1988) (irr banc)).
"‘Factual allegations alone are what matters."’ Id. i
Although Hum1icutt’s amended complaint is not a model of brevity or clarity, it
nevertheless achieved the goal of fair notice. See Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir.
1995). A paragraph of the amended complaint, entitled "Fraudulent Mental Health Services/Nom =
Existant [sic] Psychological Evaluations," alleged that the defendants "discussed the plaintiff[’s] I
private/personal mental health issues on the tier outside of the plaintiff[] and in front of other
prisoners and D.O.C. employees violating psychiatrist/psychologist—patient privileged
communications? In the section of the amended complaint identifying the defendants, Hunnicutt
asserted that Irene Wooven and Kevin Power “violated psychiatrist/patientprivileged
communication by discussing the plaintiff[’s} mental health issues on the tier in the presence of
other prisoners," and Paul Chaplin "routinely talked to the plaintiffl] on the tier while violating
psychiatrist/psychologist—patient communications? In his claims for relief Hunnicutt alleged that
defendants "Chaplain-Latier-Wooven and Powers . . . allow[ed] non—health staff access to
[prisoners’] confidential health records," albeit identifying this as a violation of the 8th
Amendment. In light of these allegations, the amended complaint gave adequate notice of a right
to privacy claim based on the public discussion of Hunnicutt’s mental health issues. Indeed, in
dismissing the amended complaint, the district court itself noted Hunnicutt’s allegation that "[a]ny
meeting with mental health staff was conducted on the tier within hearing of other inmates,” The
district court even found that "Hunnicutt alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth
Amendment right to psychiatrist-patient confidentiality?
For the reason discussed, we VACATE the judgment, in part, as it relates to the dismissal
of the constitutional privacy claim concerning the defendants’ discussion of the plaintiffs
private/personal mental health issues in front of other prisoners and D.O.C. employees, as well as
the state law claim involving the right to psychiatrist/psychologist-patient confidentiality, and
REMAND for further proceedings. See Ciombriel/o v. Counrjz of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 325 (2d I
Cir. 2002) (reinstating and remanding a state law claim with a federal claim where the state law
claim "form[s] part of the same case or controversy"). We express no view on whether other
grounds exist to dismiss the complaint once it is amended. See Scutti Enters., LLC v. Park Place {
Errtm ’r Corp., 322 F.3d 211, 215 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that more extensive pleading of facts is
-2- l


j · I ` r' Case 3:03-cv-00622CD Document 58 Filed 12/19205 Page 3 of 3
not required under Rule 8 because the federal rules "‘provide other devices besides pleadings that
._. . serve to define the facts and issues"’) (quoting 2 JAMES WM. MOORE, ET AL., MOORE’S
FEDERAL PRACTICE § 8.{)4'[1] (3d ed. 1999) (citation omitted)). On appeal, Hunnicutt challenges
only the dismissal of his right to privacy claim against defendants—appel1ees Tom Latier, Wooven,
Power, and Chaplin, and consequently we deem his other claims abandoned and, to that extent,
AFFIRM the judgment. See LOSacc0 v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 1995).
FOR THE COURT: =
Rose if B. MacKec ` Clerk J
0 A
- . I 4.4 . ____ " -1 `
l
I
l
l
l
9 1 t . cm t
____ F - E, L llll I
¤i·122é ‘·" f .. I
/ -3- l
__.r_L____________._.______,__________.__. l