At the time this case wa s submitt ed, Judge Chin was a member of

the United States * District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork, sitting by desig nation. 08- 2228- pr S m i t h v. G o o rd 1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 4 

### SU MM AR Y O RD ER 5 6 R U L I NGS B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D O N O R AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY 8 FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN 9 C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M E N T F I L E D W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY 12 PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. 13 14 Ata s ta te d t e r m of t he Uni te d St at e s C our t o f Appe als forth e Se c ond C ir c uit , he ld 15 at the Daniel P atric k Moynih an United S tate s Courthouse, 500 P earl Str eet , in the City of 16 Ne w Yo r k, o n t he 27 dayof A pr il, two th ous and t e n. th 17 18 PRES ENT: 19 B ARRI NG TO N D . PA RKER, 20 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 21 DENNYCHI N, * 22 Circuit Judges

. 23

_______________________________________________ 24 25 RANDOL PH SMI TH, 26 27 Plaintif f-Appellant , 28 29 30 v. (No. 08-2228- pr) 31 32 GL EN

N G OO RD , Co mmi ssi on e r, De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio na l Se rv ic e s, 33 34 Defendant- Appellee

. 35 36

______________________________________________ 37 38 FOR PLAI

NTI FF -APPEL L ANT: Randolph Smi th, pro se, Be acon, N ew Yor k 39 40 FOR DEF ENDAN T-APPEL L EE: Rajit S . Dosanjh, Assistant Solicitor Genera l2 1 (B arb ara D. Un de rw oo d, Sol ic ito r G e ne ra l; 2 Andre a Ose r, De puty Solicitor Genera l, on 3 the brief ), for Andre w M. Cuomo, Attorney 4 G e n e r a l o f th e S t at e o f

N e wY o r k , A l b an y, 5 New Y ork 6 7 UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDG ED AND 8 DECREED that th e jud g me nt of the dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRMED wi th r e sp e c t to the c la ims a g a ins t 9 Appellee , and RE M AN DE D wi th ins tr uc tio ns to the dis tr ic t c ourt to a llo w Ap pe lla nt t o ame nd

his 10 complaint. 11 Plaintiff-Appellant Randolph Smith, pr o s e and inca rce rate d, appea ls from a judg ment of the 12 United States District Court for the Norther n District of Ne w York ( Scullin, J. ), g rantingsummary 13 jud g me nt i n favo r o f D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lle e Commis sio ne r G le nn Go or d o n App e lla

nt’ s 4 2 U .S. C. 14 § 1 98 3 c la ims and de nying Ap pe lla nt’ s re qu e sts fo r dis c ov e ry and fo r l e ave to a

me nd his c omp la int

. 15 We assume the parties’ fa miliarity with the fac ts, procedur al history , and issues pre sented for revie w. 16 We r e vie w o rd e rs g ra nti ngsumma

ry judgm ent de novo and foc us on whether the district 17 c ourt

pr op e rl y c on c lud e d th at th e re wa s no g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l fa c t and the mov ingpa

rt y 18 was e ntitled to judgme nt as a matter of law

. Miller v. W olpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 19 300 (2d C i r. 2003). W e conc lude, for substantially the re asons stated by

the district court, that 20 Appellant did not demonstrate the exis tence of a que stion of f act as to the per sonal involvement of 21 Appellee in the al l ege d const itutional viol ation. See Se aley v . Giltner , 116 F.3d 47, 51 ( 2d Cir. 22 1997) (pr isoner fa iled to e stablish the requisite per sonal involvement of De partment of Corr ectional 23 Service s Commi ssioner to whom he ha d written letters of complaint, one of which Commiss ioner 24 ref

err ed for investigation). 25 We reviewthe denial of a motion for leave to a mend the complaint for a

buse of discr etion. 26 Se e Ne tti

s v . Le v itt , 241 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2001), overruled in part on other grounds by Slayton 27 v. Am. Express Co. , 460 F.3d 215 ( 2d Cir. 2006). Fe d. R. Civ. P . 15(a) instructs that leave to amend 2 8 s h o u ld

b e “ f r e e ly g iv e [n ]

. . . w h e n ju s ti c e s o r e qu ir e s . ” F e d

. R. Ci v . P. 1 5 ( a ) ( 2 )

. M o r e o v e r , “ [a ] pr o3 1 sec omp la int

is t o b e re a d li be ra lly” and a dis tr ic t c ourt

g e ne ra lly

sh ould not di smi ss pr o s e 2 complaints without gra nting lea ve to amend at least once when a liberal re adingof the c omplaint 3 “g ives any

indication that a valid cla im might be stated.” S h o m o v . C i t

yo f N

. Y. , 579 F.3d 176, 183 4 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Gomez v . USAA Fe d. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( per 5 curiam)) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted). 6 Her e, Appe llant ma y have set forth a valid § 1983 claim ag ainst individual staff member s at 7 Gre at Mea dow Corre ctional Fa cility , who he asser ts f ailed to pr ovide him with an alternative means 8 of tub e rc ulo sis te sti ngc on sis te nt w ith his re lig iou s pra c tic e s and ins te a d p la c e d h im i n c on fi ne me nt. 9 B e c a

us e we c ann ot de te rm ine on the fa c e of the c omp la int that gr anti ngle ave to a me nd in t his c a se 10 would be futile, see, e .g. , Fu lto n v . G oo rd , 591 F.3d 37, 45 ( 2d Cir. 2009), we a ccor dingly rema nd 11 the ca s e to t he district cour t to allow Appellant to amend his complaint. We express no views on 12 whether

any potential claims Appellant may have a g ainst defe ndants other than Commi s s i o ner 13 Goord would have mer it. 14 For

the fore g oing r easons, the judgme nt of the district court dismissing the complaint (which 15 name d only Ap pe lle e Go or d a s a de fe nd ant) is AF F IRM ED

. Th e c a se is RE M AN DE D to allow 16 Appellant to amend his c omplaint. 17 18 F OR TH E CO UR T: 19 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 20 21