Grullon v. City of New Haven
720 F.3d 133
2d Cir.2013Background
- Grullon, a pretrial detainee, was transferred to NHCC in Jan 2010 due to an outstanding CT arrest warrant.
- He alleged NHCC withheld basic necessities (phone, toothpaste, soap, paper, pens) and lacked a law library or legal materials.
- He described “dismal conditions,” including extreme heat/cold, inadequate ventilation, poor nutrition, and unsafe bunk conditions without guard rails.
- The district court reviewed under 28 U.S.C. §1915A and dismissed City and NHCC as non-suable; Warden claims were addressed separately.
- Grullon alleged personal involvement of the Warden through a letter dated April 18, 2010 complaining of conditions; the district court did not consider the letter for purposes of pleading personal involvement.
- On appeal, court vacated in part and remanded to allow amendment to plead Warden’s actual receipt/awareness and response to the Letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint alleged the Warden's personal involvement | Grullon argues Letter shows notice to Warden; pleading allows amendment | Warden contends no personal involvement; letter not sufficient | District court erred by dismissing without leave to amend |
| Whether leave to amend should have been granted | Pro se pleading plus Letter could state a plausible claim | Amendment would be futile; insufficient allegations | Amendment should have been allowed; denial deemed an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the Letter can defeat dismissal despite pleadings | Letter supports personal involvement; could be read in plaintiff's favor | Letter not attached or referenced; insufficient at pleading stage | Record requires development; court should consider amendment to include receipt/response |
| Whether exhaustion requirements affect amendment timing | Exhaustion is defense, not pleading, and can be addressed with amendment | Exhaustion rules bar relief if not satisfied | PLRA exhaustion not a barrier to granting leave to amend; misapplication by district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1986) (supervisory liability; notice after a report can support liability)
- Sealey v. Giltner, 116 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1997) (receipt of inmate letter alone not personal involvement; requires investigation actions)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (factors for supervisory liability; five ways to show personal involvement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarified pleading standards for supervisory liability (contextual))
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion not required to be pleaded; affirmative defense)
- Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670 (2d Cir. 2004) (exhaustion context in pleading; PLRA applicability)
- Davis v. Kelly, 160 F.3d 917 (2d Cir. 1998) (pro se plaintiffs entitled to discovery to develop personal-involvement theories)