136 F. Supp. 3d 570
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff is a transgender woman housed at a male facility during the events at issue.
- On Feb. 9, 2014, Cipolini told Plaintiff she could not attend religious services due to hair and sexuality.
- On Feb. 16, 2014, Plaintiff was escorted out of Catholic services for the same reason.
- On March 28, 2014, Burguess asked Plaintiff to lock in for two workers and later fired her from a porter position because the facility was a men’s facility.
- Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding Burguess, appealed it, and CORC decision occurred on Sept. 3, 2014; Plaintiff filed suit on Apr. 7, 2014, before exhaustion was complete; she later amended the complaint and sought relief.
- The court later dismissed Burguess’s claims for non-exhaustion without prejudice, and denied/limited claims against Cipolini on merits while reserving an Equal Protection claim; Plaintiff had opportunities to amend and to refile after exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under PLRA | Plaintiff exhausted Burguess by filing a grievance and CORC decision. | Plaintiff failed to exhaust before filing suit; CORC delay does not excuse non-exhaustion. | Dismissal without prejudice for Burguess; nonexhaustion evident on face of record. |
| Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims against Cipolini | Cipolini barred attendance at two services due to hair/sexuality; burden on religious exercise. | Missing two services is not a substantial burden; RLUIPA damages not available against state actors. | First Amendment and RLUIPA claims dismissed; RLUIPA damages moot; substantial burden not shown. |
| Eighth Amendment harassment claim against Cipolini | Verbal harassment and humiliation based on sexuality and appearance. | Verbal harassment alone not actionable absent injury beyond de minimis. | Eighth Amendment harassment claim dismissed; no cognizable injury shown. |
| Equal Protection claim against Cipolini | Treatment differed from others similarly situated due to hair/sexuality. | Disparate treatment requires legitimate penological justification; none apparent. | Equal Protection claim survived as to Cipolini; merits proceed to later stages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard for mortality of claims)
- Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003) (free exercise rights balanced against penological interests)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (threshold burden on sincerely held religious beliefs; RLUIPA context)
- Washington v. Goord, ?? (2d Cir. 2014) (substantial burden standard in religious exercise claims (RLUIPA/First Amendment))
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion requires following grievance procedures)