Slip Opinion
W.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Perez (filed 2012) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force, deliberate indifference, and malicious prosecution; the latter two claims were dismissed on summary judgment and only the excessive-force claim proceeded to trial against five corrections officers.
- At trial the parties offered competing narratives: defendants said Perez suddenly punched an officer and was restrained; Perez said officers attacked him in retaliation for prior grievances and threatened further harm if he filed a grievance.
- Perez admitted he did not file a grievance about the January 26, 2012 incident; the jury therefore had to decide the PLRA threshold issue whether a person of ordinary firmness, similarly situated to Perez, would have been deterred from filing a grievance.
- The jury found the grievance process was generally available and that a person of ordinary firmness would not have been deterred; judgment entered for defendants.
- Perez renewed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternatively sought a new trial under Rule 59; the Court denied both motions, finding the jury reasonably credited defendants’ testimony and corroborating evidence (photos and an employee injury report).
- Defendants’ bill of costs was partly reduced: copying costs lowered to $0.10/page and transcript rates reduced to $3.65/page, resulting in taxation of $1,300.15 in costs against Perez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for JMOL (Rule 50(b)) on PLRA/availability (ordinary-firmness) | Perez: evidence (Dr. Prince’s testimony of facial fractures and Perez’s testimony that officers threatened retaliation) made clear no reasonable juror could find grievance process available | Defs: presented contrary testimony denying threats and corroborated that Perez struck an officer (photos/injury report) | Denied — jury credibility determinations were permissible; evidence was not so one-sided to warrant JMOL |
| Motion for new trial (Rule 59) — verdict against weight of evidence | Perez: jury’s verdict was seriously erroneous given injuries and his testimony of threats/retaliation | Defs: jury reasonably weighed conflicting testimony and physical evidence supporting their account | Denied — court will not lightly disturb jury credibility findings or weight-of-evidence determinations |
| Legal effect of medical/expert proof on availability (PLRA) | Perez: serious injuries established by expert necessarily support reasonable fear of retaliation, rendering grievance process unavailable | Defs: injuries alone do not show fear related to grievance process or threats tied to that process | Held: injuries alone insufficient; availability is an objective test tied to threats/intimidation related to grievance process (citing Lucente/Ross) |
| Taxation of costs — proper per-page rates for copies and transcripts | Perez: copying should be taxed at $0.10/page; transcript rate capped at $3.65/page | Defs: sought higher per-page copying and transcript fees based on billed amounts | Court reduced copy rate to $0.10/page and transcript rate to $3.65/page; defendants awarded $1,300.15 in costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, 531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (standard for granting judgment as matter of law)
- Lucente v. County of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284 (2d Cir.) (PLRA: administrative remedies unavailable where intimidation/threats related to grievance process make them unavailable; objective ordinary-firmness test)
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (U.S.) (administrative remedies exhausted unless unavailable under objective standards)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits including excessive force)
- LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (2d Cir.) (court may not substitute its judgment for the jury on credibility)
- Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez, 670 F.3d 411 (2d Cir.) (new-trial standard; court may weigh credibility but should exercise restraint)
- Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344 (2d Cir.) (jury may accept parts of witness testimony and reject others)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S.) (PLRA exhaustion applies broadly to prisoner suits)