9:21-cv-00963
N.D.N.Y.May 19, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Lontez Brooks, a pro se incarcerated individual, alleges that on August 30, 2018 Defendant Corrections Officer Edwin Arquitt assaulted him (slapped and choked him) at Gouverneur CF; Defendant Smitty allegedly witnessed and failed to intervene. Brooks admits he slapped Arquitt during the incident and alleges additional force while restrained and during a strip-frisk by other officers.
- Brooks was later transferred to Upstate CF and filed an inmate grievance alleging staff misconduct; the Superintendent denied the grievance, finding no staff wrongdoing.
- DOCCS records show no appeal to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC); Brooks testified at deposition that he mailed an appeal to an Albany office but could not confirm the office and DOCCS has no record of receipt.
- DOCCS grievance rules require appeals to CORC be submitted via the facility IGRC for forwarding; mailing directly to a central office is not the proper procedure under those rules.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Brooks failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; Brooks did not oppose the motion. The magistrate judge recommends granting summary judgment and dismissing the amended complaint for failure to exhaust, and finds no basis to excuse exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brooks exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA before filing suit | Brooks contends he pursued grievance and mailed an appeal to a Department office in Albany | DOCCS records show the grievance denial and no CORC appeal; mailing directly to Albany was not the proper filing route | Court: Brooks failed to properly exhaust; summary judgment recommended for defendants |
| Whether exhaustion requirement was excused because remedies were unavailable | Brooks did not argue unavailability; deposition suggests attempted mailing | Defendants assert remedies were available and properly accessible under DOCCS rules | Court: No showing of unavailability under Ross v. Blake; exhaustion not excused |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits)
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (when administrative remedies are "unavailable" and thus excused)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) ("proper exhaustion" requires compliance with procedural rules)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden and procedures)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment appropriate when record could not lead a rational trier to find for non-movant)
- F.D.I.C. v. Giammettei, 34 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1994) (sources a movant may use to demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact)
- Scott v. Coughlin, 344 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2001) (need to exhaust all levels of NY IGP before federal suit)
- Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993) (failure to timely object to magistrate report may foreclose appellate review)