DeHoyas v. LeVac
6:11-cv-06084
W.D.N.Y.May 29, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Jamal DeHoyas, a DOCCS inmate, sues Lieutenant Levac under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for Eighth Amendment assault during a prison body cavity search at Five Points on December 18, 2010.
- Plaintiff alleges Levac threw him to the floor and conducted a forced body cavity search, possibly punching Plaintiff's genitals; he contends the search violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
- Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance alleging the assault; he claimed the grievance received no response due to mail issues.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies under §1997e(a).
- Plaintiff testified in deposition that he later sent the grievance to the facility superintendent and CORC after no response, but there are no copies or records to support his claim and deposition statements conflict with his complaint.
- The court found Plaintiff failed to exhaust, rejected the asserted exceptions to exhaustion, and granted summary judgment for Defendants, dismissing the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies under §1997e(a) | Plaintiff sent grievances to CORC and the Superintendent after no response | NO record of any grievance or appeal exists | Not exhausted; no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemphill v. N.Y., 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (exhaustion exceptions to PLRA appear in special circumstances)
- Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670 (2d Cir. 2004) (exhaustion framework and mandatory PLRA compliance)
- Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691 (2d Cir. 2004) (additional articulation of exhaustion exceptions)
