Murray v. Fischer
9:11-cv-00225
N.D.N.Y.Dec 24, 2014Background
- Murray, a pro se inmate, sues DOCCS staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations at Southport (2008) and Upstate (2009).
- Defendants move for summary judgment; Murray moves to dismiss certain claims without prejudice to focus on two excessive force/failure-to-protect claims from 2009.
- Surviving claims include retaliation, religious meals (Kosher) denials, alleged improper search, and two Eighth Amendment assault claims (April 16, 2009 and June 29, 2009).
- Court denies voluntary-dismissal-without-prejudice due to late stage, potential unfairness, and risk of relitigation, noting the three-year NY Civil Rights limitations period for refile.
- Exhaustion of administrative remedies is analyzed; disputed as to the April 16 and June 29 assaults, but the other claims are deemed unexhausted and should be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's motion to dismiss claims without prejudice should be granted | Murray seeks to drop some claims to focus on two merits. | Defendants urge denial to prevent prejudice and avoid relitigation. | Denied; dismissal without prejudice not appropriate at this stage. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies defeats remaining claims | Plaintiff argues some grievances were thwarted and exhausted through indirect means. | Most remaining claims irreversibly unexhausted; only the April 16/June 29 claims may implicate exhaustion. | Unexhausted beyond the assault claims; remaining claims dismissed for failure to exhaust, with prejudice. |
| Whether April 16, 2009 excessive force claim survives summary judgment | Plaintiff alleges unprovoked assault while restrained; credibility dispute with defendants’ declarations. | Defendants contend no force or threat occurred; records do not support the claim. | Material dispute exists; summary judgment denied as to April 16 excessive force claim. |
| Whether June 29, 2009 excessive force claim survives summary judgment | Alleges assault by Tulip and others; seeks relief for multiple components of the incident. | Failure to exhaust was the only challenge raised on this claim. | Genuine issue of material fact on exhaustion prevents summary judgment; claim not dismissed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemphill v. State of New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (three-part exhaustion inquiry (availability, conduct, special circumstances))
- Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670 (2d Cir. 2004) (proper exhaustion under PLRA; state-rule procedures)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; proper process required)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion requires full compliance with administrative rules)
- Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2006) (three-part inquiry adopted in post-Woodford context)
- Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2011) ( Zagano factors guide dismissals without prejudice)