Flores v. The City of New York
1:15-cv-02903
S.D.N.Y.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Francisco Flores, an above-the-knee partial leg amputee, was incarcerated at Rikers Island’s Anna M. Kross Center (AMKC) from June 2013 to August 2015 and entered custody with a prosthesis.
- The prosthesis contained electrical hardware that locked his knee when not charged; for security reasons the City did not permit charging, so the device became locked, but medical records repeatedly noted Flores was ambulatory and not in acute distress.
- Flores attended numerous medical and prosthetic appointments (including 16 Bellevue Prosthetic Clinic visits) and received a custom prosthesis in March 2015, which he later reported broken; the fabricator indicated possible tampering.
- Flores was housed on AMKC’s first floor (and briefly on the fourth floor due to flooding); AMKC medical staff control placement in the North Infirmary for non-ambulatory inmates, and Flores’s records contain no indication medical staff required such placement.
- Flores alleges deliberate indifference to medical needs and violations of the Eighth Amendment, Title II of the ADA, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; the City moved for summary judgment arguing Flores failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flores exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA before filing suit | Flores submitted grievances about housing/prosthesis (Dec 2013 and Mar 23, 2015) and attempted appeals | Grievances were unsigned/untimely or not completed through AMKC’s IGRP; March 23 grievance filed same day as complaint so not exhausted | Court: No exhaustion — summary judgment for City; grievance process not completed prior to suit |
| Whether AMKC’s refusal to allow charging of prosthesis or housing decisions amounted to deliberate indifference | Flores contends City’s actions limited prosthesis use and appropriate housing, causing harm | City shows frequent medical visits, ambulatory status, accommodations (cane, crutches, shower chairs), and medical discretion over housing placement | Court did not reach merits because failure to exhaust disposes of the case |
| Whether the 2015 grievance was subject to IGRP and/or cured exhaustion by being filed | Flores argues he filed and tried to appeal the grievance concurrent with complaint filing | City argues grievance either was processed or forwarded but could not constitute exhaustion when signed same day as lawsuit | Court: filing same day as complaint insufficient; exhaustion requires completion before suit |
| Whether pro se status relaxes exhaustion burden | Flores is pro se and should have plead liberally | Court recognizes pro se leniency but requires evidence beyond bald assertions to survive summary judgment | Court: pro se status considered but does not excuse failure to exhaust or lack of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (moving party burden on summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show specific facts to create genuine issue)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (no genuine issue where record as a whole cannot lead a rational trier of fact for nonmoving party)
- Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787 (liberal reading of pro se litigant’s papers)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (prison’s procedures define proper exhaustion)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (exhaustion defined by prison requirements)
- Carey v. Crescenzi, 923 F.2d 18 (unsupported bald assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)