460 F. App'x 11
2d Cir.2012Background
- Johnston, a pretrial detainee, was placed in isolation at Genesee County Jail in Feb and Mar 2005 while awaiting burglary trial.
- He alleges he was not informed of the reasons for isolation nor given an opportunity to challenge it, constituting due process violations on Counts One and Two.
- In July 2005, shortly after sentencing, Johnston allegedly was attacked by a correctional officer, raising Count Three claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment on all counts, applying Sandin to pretrial detainee claims and finding nonexhaustion under the PLRA for Counts Two and Three.
- The court vacated Counts One and Two’s merits assessment, and remanded to apply the correct due process standard for pretrial detainees, while Count Three was analyzed for exhaustion and merits.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated in part, holding Count One and the alternative merits of Count Two must be evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment pretrial-detainee standard, Count Two exhaustion must be reallocated, and Count Three exhaustion may be excused due to unavailability of the jail grievance process after transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate due process standard for Counts One and Two | Johnston argues Fourteenth Amendment due process applies (pretrial detainee). | District court used Sandin/8th Amendment framework. | Remand to apply proper Fourteenth Amendment standard. |
| Exhaustion of Count Two under PLRA | Grievance form shows proper exhaustion. | Exhaustion not proven; missing follow-up records. | District Court erred; material facts show exhaustion; reversal and remand. |
| Exhaustion and merits of Count Three under PLRA | Exhaustion excused due to unavailability after transfer. | PLRA exhaustion required despite transfer. | Exhaustion excused; remand for merits trial. |
| Scope of remand and pretrial/trial proceedings | Counts One and Two merits under proper standard; Count Three merits trial. | Affirm/deny based on district court rulings. | Affirm Four through Seventeen; vacate One–Three; remand for proper standard and trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court 1995) (due process rights of pretrial detainees distinguished from convicted prisoners)
- Benjamin v. Fraser, 264 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2001) (Sandin does not apply to pretrial detainees)
- United States v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2011) (liberal construction of pro se submissions; strongest arguments rule)
- Cerrone v. Brown, 246 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2001) (due process considerations for pretrial detainees preserved)
- Rodriguez v. Westchester Cnty. Jail Corr. Dep’t, 372 F.3d 485 (2d Cir. 2004) (exemption from PLRA exhaustion when grievance process unavailable)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (exemption to PLRA exhaustion for unavailable grievance systems)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court 2006) (proper exhaustion required under PLRA but does not negate unavailability defense)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court 2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; failure to exhaust precludes relief unless unavailable)