Angulo v. Nassau County
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28044
| E.D.N.Y | 2015Background
- Angulo, proceeding pro se, sues Nassau County, Sposato, and NCCC staff under §1983 for destruction of his legal documents and legal mail affecting potential counsel and trial rights.
- Defendants move for summary judgment arguing PLRA exhaustion failure and merits; court ultimately grants motion in full.
- Angulo was an inmate at Nassau County Correctional Center from January 29 to November 9, 2009, then transferred to Downstate; he had prior representation by Cassisi & Cassisi in an LIRR case.
- While at NCCC, Angulo allegedly did not receive any legal mail from his counsel; after transfer, counsel withdrew and sent unopened mail; March 5, 2009 letter warned about filing deadlines relevant to the LIRR case.
- Angulo alleges officers destroyed letters and legal documents; August 12, 2009, he claims Pulgrano ripped and shredded documents left in the law library, observed by others.
- Angulo did not file a proper grievance under the Inmate Handbook procedures; instead he sent a letter to Sheriff Sposato claiming the grievance, but there is no evidence of a response or an appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Angulo exhausted his administrative remedies | Angulo contends exhaustion was achieved by filing a grievance. | Defendants argue improper exhaustion; no timely, proper steps completed. | Angulo failed to exhaust; dismissal on exhaustion grounds. |
| Whether the destruction of legal documents left in the law library is exhausted and proper to adjudicate | Angulo asserts grievance procedures were not properly available or followed. | Proper exhaustion required strict compliance; Angulo did not complete steps or appeals. | Claims regarding destruction of documents left in the law library fail for lack of proper exhaustion. |
| Whether destruction of legal mail violated access to courts or other rights | Angulo alleges mail destruction impeded access to counsel and the courts. | No evidence shows intentional interference or actual injury to access to courts. | Plaintiff failed to show actual injury; access-to-courts claim lacking evidence; grant of summary judgment on mail claims affirmed. |
| Whether any alleged mail destruction supports a Sixth Amendment or §1985 conspiracy claim | Angulo asserts Sixth Amendment and conspiracy claims based on mail destruction. | Sixth Amendment does not apply to civil actions; insufficient facts to show conspiracy. | Claims dismissed; no basis for conspiracy or Sixth Amendment violation found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.2009) (exhaustion applies to all inmate suits under PLRA)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S.2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense requiring proper compliance)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S.2006) (proper exhaustion requires adherence to agency procedures and deadlines)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir.2004) (special circumstances may excuse exhaustion for reasonable misinterpretations)
- Ruggiero v. County of Orange, 467 F.3d 170 (2d Cir.2006) (proper exhaustion requires applying the prison’s procedures to determine compliance)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.1986) (burden shifting for producing evidence of absence of disputed facts)