New York Prisoner’s Suit Dismissed in Federal Court for Prisoner’s Misconduct

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a suit filed by Edward Koehl, a New York prisoner, for his use of abusive language and insults against a district court magistrate judge. The Court determined that Koehl’s insults, rather than his accusations of bias, against the judge were proper grounds for dismissal with prejudice as a sanction, therefore affirming the district court’s decision on January 23, 2014.

Koehl had been a prisoner at Green Haven Correctional Facility when Medical Director Fredick Bernstein, Warden William Lee, former Warden Robert Ercole, and others allegedly failed to meet Koehl’s medical needs and retaliated against him for seeking treatment. Koehl, pro se, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the defendants’ actions had violated his constitutional rights.

At some point, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the district court chose Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein to recommend on the motion and handle other pretrial issues. During this time, Koehl sent letters to the district court, insulting Gorenstein, using abusive language, and accusing him of bias. Gorenstein warned Koehl on January 27, 2012, that if he did not cease his abusive attacks, he risked his suit being dismissed as a sanction. The abuse continued nonetheless and in response to Gorenstein’s April 26, 2012 order to show cause why Koehl’s suit should not be dismissed as a sanction, Koehl further insulted Gorenstein, declaring that Gorenstein “had no business being a judge” and because of Gorenstein, Koehl was “ashamed to be an American” and “more ashamed to be a Jew.”

On June 13, 2012, Gorenstein recommended to the district court that Koehl’s suit be dismissed with prejudice, citing Koehl’s bad faith. The district court accepted the recommendation and dismissed. On Koehl’s subsequent appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether the district court had abused its discretion. While the Court of Appeals recognized that dismissal as a sanction is harsh and pro se litigants are afforded leeway in pleadings before a court, the Court held that dismissal may be justified where a warning has been given that failure to comply with an order may result in an action’s dismissal. The district court’s dismissal of Koehl’s suit was such an instance and not an abuse of discretion, the Court concluded.

Also, in support of its holding, the Court of Appeals found that Koehl had had a pro se suit dismissed as a sanction in 2010 for similar abusive conduct. However, Koehl’s accusation of bias was not included as a ground for his suit’s dismissal. The court of appeals pointed out that “[a]sserting that a judicial officer is biased against a party…is ordinarily, without more, not sanctionable conduct.” See: Koehl v. Bernstein, 740 F.3d 860 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2014).

Related legal case