McKinney v. Prack
170 F. Supp. 3d 510
W.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Plaintiff Darrell McKinney, a pro se inmate at Great Meadow CF, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming prolonged segregated confinement (SHU) for non-violent conduct violated the Eighth Amendment and caused physical/psychological injury.
- Plaintiff alleges he received misbehavior reports in February 2009 and subsequently spent about 5.5 years in isolation; he claims DOCCS policy permits lengthy SHU terms without adequate individualized review.
- Defendants (Prack, Thomas Griffin, Wenderlich) moved for summary judgment in lieu of an answer, arguing McKinney failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA. The Court considered the motion after McKinney submitted a response.
- The record showed McKinney did not file grievances with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee (IGRC) or complete the three-step DOCCS grievance process for claims about injuries from SHU between 2011–2014.
- McKinney asserted some grievances were rejected for using UCC indicators instead of his DOCCS name; the Court found he had previously exhausted about 20 grievances in his incarceration and that the rejected grievances were not for the claims here.
- The Court concluded administrative remedies were available, defendants timely raised non-exhaustion, no special circumstances excused non-exhaustion, and granted summary judgment for defendants; the case was closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKinney exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA for his SHU-related injury claims | McKinney claims DOCCS staff (e.g., Angela Bartlett) returned/rejected grievances (due to his use of UCC indicators), impeding exhaustion | Defendants show no grievance or CORC appeal was filed regarding the alleged physical/psychological injuries from SHU (2011–2014) | Court held McKinney failed to exhaust because he did not file IGRC grievances or complete appeals, so claims barred by PLRA |
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" such that non-exhaustion may be excused | McKinney contends grievance process was effectively unavailable because grievances were rejected and he risked discipline for using UCC identifiers | Defendants point to evidence McKinney successfully exhausted many prior grievances and could have refiled or appealed rejections | Court held remedies were available; rejection for using UCC indicator did not render process unavailable and McKinney failed to refile or appeal |
| Whether defendants are estopped or forfeited the non-exhaustion defense | McKinney implies staff impeded filing grievances | Defendants argue they timely asserted the defense and named staff who allegedly impeded are not defendants | Court held defendants are not estopped; alleged impediments by non-defendant staff cannot be imputed to named defendants and defense was timely raised |
| Whether "special circumstances" excuse failure to exhaust | McKinney points to alleged interference and grievance rejections | Defendants argue no special circumstances: McKinney knew grievance process and used it previously | Court held no special circumstances; prior CORC appeals show awareness and lack of a plausible excuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment—genuine issue requirement)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (three-part inquiry when plaintiff contests non-exhaustion)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (proper exhaustion requirement)
- Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2011) (exhaustion is mandatory; discussion of Hemphill/Woodford)
- Messa v. Goord, 652 F.3d 305 (no jury right on PLRA exhaustion factual disputes)