Moreau v. Peterson
672 F. App'x 119
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Emile Moreau, a New York state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued five DOCCS employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and deliberate indifference related to his GED program and housing assignments at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
- The complaint was liberally construed to assert six claims: racial discrimination by GED staff; retaliation by GED staff after grievances; superintendent's deliberate indifference for refusing a transfer; and retaliation/deliberate indifference by a corrections officer who placed Moreau with a prior attacker.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); Moreau appealed that dismissal.
- The Second Circuit reviewed exhaustion under the PLRA, timeliness under New York's three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, and the plausibility of a retaliatory causal connection.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: four claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the discrimination claim was dismissed as time-barred; the remaining retaliation claim was dismissed for failure to plead a plausible causal link.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLRA exhaustion of administrative remedies | Moreau contends some grievances were impossible to file and therefore exhausted requirement should not bar claims | DOCCS argues Moreau failed to file grievances for four claims under the three-step DOCCS process | Held: Four claims dismissed for failure to exhaust; plaintiff's inability-to-file assertions unsupported by record |
| Timeliness of racial discrimination claim | Moreau argues claim arises from 2010 events and is timely when read liberally | DOCCS argues the three-year statute ran before complaint filing; only 87 days of exhaustion occurred, insufficient to toll limitations through filing date | Held: Discrimination claim untimely; statute expired before plaintiff filed complaint |
| Retaliation—causal connection | Moreau contends defendants retaliated after he filed grievances (September 29, 2010) | Defendants point to evidence undermining causation, including prison paperwork indicating test failure independent of alleged interference | Held: Retaliation claim dismissed for failure to plead a plausible causal link between protected activity and adverse action |
| Deliberate indifference/placement and transfer claims | Moreau alleges deliberate indifference by superintendent and officer through failure to transfer and housing him with an attacker | Defendants maintain grievances not filed and no plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference pleaded | Held: Claims dismissed for failure to exhaust (and for lack of plausible allegations where applicable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Cayuga Nation v. Tanner, 824 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2016) (de novo review of dismissals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961 (2d Cir. 2015) (statute of limitations for § 1983 and accrual rule)
- Gonzalez v. Hasty, 651 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 2011) (tolling limitations while administratively exhausting)
- Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2003) (elements and causal connection for prison retaliation claims)