Colon v. Griffin
7:15-cv-07432
S.D.N.Y.Oct 17, 2019Background
- In September 2013 plaintiff Armando Colon, a legally blind incarcerated person at Sullivan Correctional Facility, was assaulted and sustained multiple facial fractures requiring reconstructive surgery at Albany Medical Center (Dr. Ashit Patel performed surgeries in Sept. 2013, Jan. 2014, May 2014 and later oral procedures).
- Colon alleges that after the surgeries he experienced ongoing severe pain, swelling, an exposed/infected bone and difficulty chewing, and that Sullivan medical staff (including Medical Director Wladyslaw Sidorowicz and unnamed Sullivan medical officers) were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
- Colon filed several institutional grievances (notably SUL 21235/14, SUL 21389/14, and SUL 21696/15); CORC rejected or found portions untimely, particularly complaints predating May 2014.
- Procedurally Colon brought § 1983 Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment claims against Sidorowicz and Sullivan medical staff, and state-law medical malpractice claims against Albany Medical Center and Dr. Patel; discovery remained incomplete when dispositive motions were filed.
- Sidorowicz moved for summary judgment arguing Colon failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; Medical Defendants moved to dismiss state malpractice claims if federal claims were dismissed; Colon sought leave to serve a late certificate of merit.
- The District Court granted Sidorowicz’s motion (dismissal with prejudice for failure to exhaust), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state malpractice claims (dismissed without prejudice), and denied the late certificate-of-merit motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colon exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA for his deliberate-indifference § 1983 claims | Grievances 21235, 21389, and 21696 put DOCCS on notice of his continuing serious medical needs and thus exhausted remedies | Sidorowicz: Colon did not present allegations of deliberate indifference in those grievances; CORC rejected earlier complaints as untimely | Not exhausted. Summary judgment for Sidorowicz; § 1983 claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether administrative remedies were unavailable (exception to exhaustion) | Colon: infirmary confinement and IGRP coordinator misconduct made grievance process unavailable | Defs: records show Colon used IGP successfully many times; no evidence of systematic denial of his grievances | Not unavailable. No exception; exhaustion required and not met |
| Whether court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice claims after dismissal of federal claims | Colon: case long-pending and plaintiff elderly; retention would avoid delay and duplication | Medical Defs: dismissal of federal claims eliminates original-jurisdiction basis and issues are state-law; much discovery still outstanding | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); malpractice claims dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court |
| Whether to allow belated filing of CPLR § 3012-a certificate of merit | Colon sought leave to serve a late certificate of merit to proceed on malpractice claim | Medical Defs: moot if federal claims dismissed and court declines supplemental jurisdiction | Denied as moot (court dismissed state claims without prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine dispute at summary judgment)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (PLRA exhaustion governed by prison procedures)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (timeliness and proper exhaustion under PLRA)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. 2016) (exceptions to exhaustion limited to unavailability)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (grievance must give prison officials enough information to investigate)
- Johnson v. Killian, 680 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2012) (continuing-violation/contextual exhaustion discussion)
- Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2018) (discretionary factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)