Lucente v. County of Suffolk
980 F.3d 284
| 2d Cir. | 2020Background
- Six women incarcerated at Suffolk County’s Riverhead Facility (including appellants Lucente, Culoso, and Viola) alleged that Sergeant Joseph Foti sexually harassed and assaulted female inmates from 2009–2011.
- Evidence included contemporaneous inmate testimony of repeated assaults/harassment, testimony from corrections staff about inappropriate conduct, and Internal Affairs records from the 1990s and a 2011–2013 IA investigation.
- Supervisors at the Facility (Sergeant Noreen Fisher, Lieutenant Darlene McClurkin) and investigator Santacroce received complaints; plaintiffs allege reports were ignored or met with retaliation.
- Internal Affairs’ 2013 report found violations related to pornographic material and conduct detrimental to the Sheriff’s Office; Foti retired in early 2013.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants: dismissed Monell municipal claims (no policy/custom), held Lucente and Culoso’s §1983 claims time-barred, and dismissed Viola for failing to exhaust under the PLRA.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Viola’s claims, but vacated dismissal as to Lucente and Culoso and reversed the Monell/individual-defendant dismissals, remanding for trial on those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability (Monell): existence of policy/custom of acquiescence to Foti’s misconduct | County had actual/constructive notice of widespread, persistent misconduct (1990s IA reports + 2009–2011 complaints); supervisors ignored or tacitly authorized misconduct | No municipal policy; isolated rogue officer; supervisors who knew were not policymakers and did not have authority to set policy | Reversed district court: factual disputes exist about supervisory awareness, constructive acquiescence, and persistence/widespreadness; Monell claim survives summary judgment and goes to jury |
| Scope of notice needed for Monell (must supervisors know of sexual assaults vs. harassment?) | Knowledge of sexual harassment, fraternization, and patterns is sufficient to infer risk of assault and constitute notice/acquiescence | Supervisors lacked knowledge of actual sexual assaults; harassment alone insufficient for Monell | Court held supervisors need not have known of specific assaults; knowledge of pervasive harassment/fraternization and inaction can support Monell liability |
| §1983 statute of limitations & continuing-violation (Lucente & Culoso) | Continuing violation doctrine tolls accrual because conduct was persistent and part of an ongoing municipal policy; some acts occurred within 3 years before filing | Claims are time-barred; no surviving Monell claim means continuing-violation not applicable; discrete acts outside limitations | Reversed district court: disputed facts whether harassment/assaults continued into the limitations period; continuing-violation may apply; claims not dismissed on timeliness at summary judgment |
| PLRA exhaustion (Viola) | Administrative remedies were unavailable because of intimidation/retaliation at the facility (fear of reporting) | Viola failed to file any grievance; no evidence of threats or intimidation tied to grievance process; mere fear insufficient | Affirmed district court: Viola did not show grievance process was objectively unavailable; generalized fear or knowledge of unrelated violence did not excuse exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (establishes municipal liability under §1983)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (Monell policy/custom may include tacit inaction; notice theory)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (deliberate indifference and causation standards for municipal liability)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (municipal customs/policies may be inferred from acquiescence)
- Sorlucco v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, 971 F.2d 864 (2d Cir.) (constructive acquiescence by supervisors)
- Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (toleration of unmonitored guard–inmate contact probative of municipal indifference)
- Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31 (2d Cir.) (pervasiveness of harassment + lack of response can support Monell)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (statute-of-limitations rules for §1983 actions)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir.) (continuing-violation doctrine for municipal acquiescence)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (administrative exhaustion required under PLRA; availability exception explained)