7:14-cv-00833
S.D.N.Y.Jan 12, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Clarence Lee Artis, Jr. is an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility who sues Green Haven staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation and harassment.
- Defendants are Sgt. Maria Velardo, C.O. John Toal, and C.O. Patrick Webber.
- Around Feb. 22, 2014, Artis allegedly missed a haircut signup and, in exchange for a haircut, agreed to a week in the SHU; after one week, he was told a two-week SHU deal for a haircut.
- Artis refused to stay in SHU for two weeks and was threatened by Toal; Velardo allegedly pressured him and later asked to see his penis, which he refused.
- Outside rec, Velardo took his headphones; Artis was segregated and later strip-searched by Velardo, Toal, and another officer; a misbehavior report followed, along with derogatory sexual comments from Toal and Velardo.
- After filing a grievance, Plaintiff alleges further retaliation: removal of glasses and dentures and damage to his legal work; he alleges sexual harassment, verbal harassment, and denial of one hour of exercise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies. | Artis contends his claims were brought in the grievance system. | Velardo, Toal, and Webber argue Artis failed to exhaust. | Exhaustion required; dismissed for non-exhaustion. |
| Whether the failure to oppose the motion amounts to abandonment of claims. | Artis did not meaningfully oppose, but asserts factual defenses exist. | Abandonment requires granting the motion. | Claims abandoned; court grants dismissal on that basis. |
| If not exhausted, can the case proceed on the merits? | Not applicable; arguments focus on exhaustion. | PLRA exhaustion prerequisite bars merit consideration. | No merits consideration due to failure to exhaust. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (twenty statements insufficient; plausibility standard for claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claims, not just legal conclusions)
- Jackson v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Labor, 709 F. Supp. 2d 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (pro se pleadings liberally construed)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se filings; avoid forfeiture of rights)
- Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2006) (exhaustion required for prisoner suit; internal procedures matter)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion through all steps is required)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exclusive of merit review in prison administrative remedy systems)
- Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (incorporation by reference and judicial notice considerations in dismissals)
- Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1993) (evidence and pleading standards in complex cases)