Mayo v. Lavis
689 F. App'x 23
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Wilson Mayo, pro se, sued Attica correction officers (Kelly, Collier, Lavis, Boughkite) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force and due process violations arising from a visiting-room incident and a subsequent disciplinary hearing.
- District Court granted summary judgment for defendants on May 13, 2016; Mayo appealed.
- District Court concluded Mayo failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his excessive-force and retaliation claims against Kelly, that collateral estoppel barred his due process claims against Collier and Lavis based on an earlier Article 78 decision, and that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in part.
- Mayo conceded he never filed the required DOCCS grievance within 21 days about Kelly’s alleged use of force and only appealed the disciplinary hearing outcome.
- Mayo’s Article 78 challenge to the disciplinary hearing was rejected by the New York Appellate Division (Third Dep’t); Mayo presented no new evidence that the state court had not considered.
- Mayo alleged procedural error (no magistrate report) but the court held no report was required because the magistrate was not designated to decide dispositive motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for excessive force (Kelly) | Mayo contends Kelly used excessive force and raised related retaliation claims; district court erred in granting summary judgment for failure to exhaust | Defendants argue Mayo never filed the required DOCCS grievance and thus did not properly exhaust administrative remedies under PLRA | Held: Summary judgment affirmed — Mayo failed to exhaust; no applicable exception shown |
| Retaliation claim for false misbehavior report/testimony (Kelly) | Mayo asserts Kelly wrote a false report and testified falsely in retaliation | Defendants: same exhaustion defense under PLRA | Held: Barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Due process claims based on disciplinary hearing (Collier, Lavis) | Mayo argues due process violations: hearing officer bias, failure to hear witnesses, inadequate assistance | Defendants argue issue preclusion applies because Mayo litigated these matters in an Article 78 proceeding | Held: Collateral estoppel applies; claims precluded because issues identical and previously decided by state court; Mayo offered no new evidence |
| Procedural error — failure to obtain magistrate judge report | Mayo claims district court improperly granted summary judgment without magistrate report/recommendation | Defendants: magistrate not designated to decide dispositive motions; no report required | Held: No error — district court properly ruled without magistrate report |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies to inmate suits alleging excessive force)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (requires proper exhaustion complying with agency procedural rules)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (limits exceptions to PLRA exhaustion requirement)
- Williams v. Priatno, 829 F.3d 118 (DOCCS 21-day grievance rule and exhaustion analysis)
- Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (appeal of disciplinary hearing does not substitute for grievance exhaustion)
- Giakoumelos v. Coughlin, 88 F.3d 56 (collateral estoppel when prisoner previously litigated disciplinary due process in Article 78)
- Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280 (elements of collateral estoppel)
- Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (summary judgment standards; conclusory allegations insufficient)