Hubbs v. Suffolk County Sheriff's Department
788 F.3d 54
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Hubbs alleges he was beaten by Suffolk County deputy sheriffs in a courthouse holding cell after a trial, sustaining head trauma and a seizure.
- Hubbs’s mother and trial counsel reported the incident to the Sheriff and internal affairs; IA investigated and found no wrongdoing.
- SCCF (jail) has an inmate handbook grievance procedure for inmates in custody at SCCF jails; handbook states issues “outside the Warden’s control” are not subject to grievance.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Hubbs failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; district court granted summary judgment relying on the SCCF grievance handbook and an affidavit from the grievance coordinator (Rosenblatt).
- On appeal, the Second Circuit held defendants bore the burden to show a legally sufficient grievance procedure applied to events in the court holding facility and found defendants’ evidence (handbook plus Rosenblatt affidavit) conclusory and inadequate to show remedies were actually available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" under the PLRA for an alleged assault in the county court holding cell | Hubbs: no grievance procedure was available for courthouse holding-cell incidents involving deputy sheriffs; thus exhaustion not required | Defendants: SCCF grievance system (and Rosenblatt affidavit) encompassed such incidents, so Hubbs failed to exhaust | Held: Defendants failed to prove availability from a legally sufficient source; remedies not shown available; summary judgment vacated |
| Burden of proof on exhaustion at summary judgment | Hubbs: burden rests on defendants to show existence/applicability of an administrative remedy | Defendants: argued handbook and coordinator affidavit suffice to meet burden | Held: burden is on defendants to point to legally sufficient source; conclusory affidavit insufficient |
| Whether handbook barred or allowed grievances about matters outside the warden's control | Hubbs: handbook excludes such matters, so remedies unavailable | Defendants: handbook did not preclude initial grievances for matters outside warden's control | Held: handbook language created genuine question whether warden had control; it did not establish availability as a matter of law |
| Whether exceptions to exhaustion (e.g., Hemphill factors) needed consideration | Hubbs: alternatively argued exhaustion excused under Hemphill | Defendants: maintained exhaustion required | Held: Court did not reach Hemphill analysis because defendants failed to establish availability initially |
Key Cases Cited
- Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663 (2d Cir. 2004) (availability requires possibility of some relief)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2001) (PLRA requires exhaustion of available remedies)
- Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1999) (availability is a legal question; courts must establish existence of procedure)
- Mojias v. Johnson, 351 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2003) (defendant must point to legally sufficient sources showing grievance process applies)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (three-part inquiry when plaintiff alleges exhaustion was impossible or futile)
- Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 1999) (conclusory affidavits insufficient at summary judgment)