Hill v. Curcione
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19007
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Hill, a pretrial detainee at Niagara County Jail, alleges deliberate indifference by Aikin and Hohensee for inadequate treatment after a March 28, 2007 injury.
- Hill claims Curcione and Chawer used excessive force during the March 28, 2007 escort from his cell to punitive segregation.
- Hill was allegedly assaulted, handcuffed too tightly, restrained, and transported to isolation with delayed medical care.
- A grievance filed April 5, 2007 acknowledged an assault but did not name Williams; Captain Vandetta determined the appeal was not grievable, affecting exhaustion analysis.
- District Court granted summary judgment to Williams for failure to exhaust; later, the court granted summary judgment to Curcione and Chawer on exhaustion grounds; the Second Circuit vacated in part and remanded for issues related to timeliness, and to potential discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aikin and Hohensee may be liable for deliberate indifference. | Hill alleges denial of pain meds and nerve testing. | Aikin and Hohensee provided medical care; no culpable recklessness shown. | Dismissal affirmed; no deliberate indifference shown against Aikin or Hohensee. |
| Whether Williams is entitled to summary judgment for failure to exhaust. | Exhaustion met because grievance process was engaged. | No grievance naming Williams; PLRA exhaustion not satisfied. | Summary judgment for Williams affirmed for lack of exhaustion. |
| Whether Curcione and Chawer exhausted properly under PLRA. | Grievance timely or timely-equivalent; merits reached despite untimeliness. | Untimely filing; no proper exhaustion. | Remanded on timeliness; proper exhaustion unresolved; district court may permit discovery or trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (medical deliberate indifference standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (subjective knowledge of risk; deliberate indifference)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (cuplable state of mind required for indifference)
- Hathaway v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 550 (2d Cir. 1996) (objective seriousness of medical deprivation)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998) (malpractice not Iff unless culpable recklessness)
- Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (medical judgment solidified; no Eighth Amendment violation)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion required)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (applies PLRA exhaustion broadly to inmate suits)
- Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2004) (timely belated filing treated on merits as exhaustion)
- Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (10th Cir. 2002) (late filing treated on merits when accepted)
- Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion addressed for late filings)