Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiff Mark A. LaPierre, a pro se prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events arising from an alleged December 21, 2012 assault at Clinton CF and subsequent medical care at Downstate and Marcy CFs; Amended Complaint added Officer Randy Russell.
- No DOCCS grievance exists in the record concerning the December 21, 2012 assault at Clinton; DOCCS officials attest no such grievance was filed.
- Plaintiff was transferred and seen in infirmaries; x‑ray at Downstate showed a fractured ninth rib; Dr. Vadlamudi at Marcy treated Plaintiff multiple times (January–May 2013), prescribing Tylenol/Ibuprofen and a bottom‑bunk permit, and denied MRI as not medically indicated.
- Plaintiff filed and fully exhausted a March 28, 2013 grievance complaining of Vadlamudi’s medical care (appealed to and denied by CORC), but not a grievance explicitly about the alleged December 21 assault.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to Defendants Guynup, LaValley, Delisle, and Russell regarding the alleged assault, and (2) that Dr. Vadlamudi was not deliberately indifferent; the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to exhaust administrative remedies for assault claims | LaPierre says he attempted to file a handwritten grievance that "disappeared" and claims officials thwarted him | DOCCS records show no grievance for the assault; plaintiff properly exhausted only the medical‑care grievance | Court: dismissal for failure to exhaust; plaintiff did not file a proper grievance and cannot rely on lost/misplaced grievance claim or informal notice to satisfy PLRA exhaustion |
| Availability exception to PLRA exhaustion (Ross v. Blake) | LaPierre contends grievance process was unavailable, opaque, or he was intimidated/feared retaliation | DOCCS grievance process functioned (plaintiff later used it for medical grievance); no specific threats or credible evidence of intimidation at Downstate to justify exception | Court: Ross exceptions not met; plaintiff’s later use of the IGP shows process was available and his fear is generalized and insufficient |
| Whether informal complaints/IG interviews satisfy exhaustion | Plaintiff points to letters and an Inspector General interview and claims Lt. Olmstead said matter was non‑grievable | Defendants say informal notice/IG involvement does not substitute for procedural exhaustion under PLRA | Court: informal notice and IG interviews do not constitute proper exhaustion; the prisoner must follow the grievance procedure |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference by Dr. Vadlamudi | LaPierre claims Vadlamudi refused diagnostic testing and stronger meds despite severe pain | Vadlamudi contends he examined/treating Plaintiff, ordered conservative care, and used professional judgment; disagreement over treatment is not deliberate indifference | Court: granted summary judgment for Vadlamudi—medical records show multiple evaluations and conservative treatment; plaintiff’s disagreement with treatment does not establish deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (administrative remedies must be exhausted unless unavailable; three exceptions defined)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (requires "proper exhaustion" including compliance with procedural rules)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective deliberate indifference requires conscious disregard of substantial risk)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (disagreement over treatment does not establish Eighth Amendment violation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
- Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63 (serious medical need and deliberate indifference framework)