Slip Opinion
W.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jonathan Richardson sued five DOCCS corrections officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force on January 28, 2012 at Wende Correctional Facility.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Richardson failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA before filing suit.
- Administrative procedure in New York requires a three-step grievance process culminating in an appeal to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC).
- DOCCS records (affidavit of Cynthia LaCoy) showed no CORC appeal by Richardson related to Wende CF or during 2012.
- Richardson produced his original grievance and the superintendent’s denial and submitted an undated/unsigned copy of an alleged CORC appeal dated March 13, 2012 plus a conclusory affidavit claiming the appeal was filed and later discarded.
- Court found (1) no admissible evidence the CORC appeal was filed; (2) the alleged CORC appeal would have been untimely under DOCCS rules; and (3) Richardson offered no facts to excuse non-exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richardson exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to CORC | Richardson says he appealed to CORC and that any missing appeal was discarded | DOCCS records show no CORC appeal for Richardson; the appeal record is absent | No exhaustion; court finds no CORC appeal in record |
| Whether Richardson’s submitted CORC appeal proof is sufficient | The dated copy of the appeal and plaintiff affidavit show appeal | The copy lacks clerk signature/receipt and is not authenticated | Insufficient: document lacks indicia of filing or official receipt |
| Timeliness of any CORC appeal | Richardson dated alleged appeal March 13, 2012 | DOCCS requires CORC appeal within seven days of superintendent decision | Even if filed, the March 13 submission would be untimely and thus not proper exhaustion |
| Whether non-exhaustion should be excused (e.g., grievance destroyed) | Plaintiff claims appeal was intentionally thrown away; also points to delayed CORC response | No specific facts or proof of interference; CORC correspondence indicates no appeal was filed | No excuse; Hemphill factors not met — failure to exhaust is fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment procedural standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (purpose of summary judgment; assessing proof)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (proper exhaustion requires compliance with deadlines and procedural rules)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies to all prison-condition claims)
- Messa v. Goord, 652 F.3d 305 (district courts decide factual disputes over exhaustion)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (circumstances under which exhaustion may be excused)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (conclusory allegations insufficient to create factual dispute)