Amador v. Andrews, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17440

Background

Thirteen present and former female inmates sue DOCS under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for sexual abuse, harassment, and policy failures, seeking injunctive/declaratory relief and damages.
The district court dismissed some plaintiffs’ injunctive claims as moot or for failure to exhaust and denied class certification for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellants challenge mootness/exhaustion rulings and seek appellate review of injunctive claims; a prior panel held appellate jurisdiction existed over injunctive relief, not damages.
New York’s Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) requires exhaustion of internal remedies through IGRC, CORC, and related steps; the procedure covers challenges to policies as well as to applications of policies.
The IGP involves a three-step grievance process and, critically, allows challenges to DOCS policies and procedures, including those related to sexual misconduct.
The court holds that the relation-back doctrine preserves the released inmates’ claims for class purposes and that damages claims are not subject to pendent appellate jurisdiction, prompting dismissal of those damages claims and remand for further proceedings on injunctive/declaratory claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeals court has pendent jurisdiction over damages claims.	Amador argues damages overlap with injunctive issues and should be reviewable on appeal.	Defendants contend damages claims are not properly reviewable on appeal from an injunction ruling.	No pendent appellate jurisdiction over damages claims; dismiss damages.
Whether the district court correctly applied PLRA exhaustion requirements.	Appellants exhausted through IGRC/CORC where applicable; some claims targeted policy changes.	Many appellants did not properly exhaust per PLRA rules.	Exhaustion required; several appellants did not exhaust, though some (e.g., Dawson) did; calls for further proceedings.
Whether the relation-back doctrine preserves claims of released inmates for class certification.	Released plaintiffs’ claims should relate back to the original complaint.	Mootness should bar relief if no live controversy.	Relation-back applies; released inmates’ claims preserved for class action purposes.
Whether the IGP exhaustion can encompass systemic relief claims (policies/procedures) in a class action.	Grievances alleging failure to protect and systemic policy issues should count as exhaustion.	Exhaustion must target the policy-change aspects via CORC/IGP; some plaintiffs failed to exhaust.	Some exhausted as to policy issues (e.g., Dawson, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith); others did not; outcome depends on individual analysis.
Whether mootness defeats class certification if some claims remain live and capable of repetition.	Mootness should not wipe out class claims when relief can be repeated and review preserved.	Mootness undermines representative claims; class theory requires live issues.	Mootness did not bar class claims; the class claims may proceed consistent with relation-back.

Key Cases Cited

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion required; steps must be followed to address meritorious issues)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion must include detailed grievance and proper processing)
Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (estoppel and special circumstances in PLRA exhaustion analysis)
Geraghty v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 445 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1980) (inherently transitory class action considerations for relation back)
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1975) (class-action relation back and reviewability of class claims)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requirements for justiciability in class actions)