656 F. App'x 577
2d Cir.2016Background
- Inmate Daniel Riles sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a March 17, 2008 use of force by CO Michael Blue at Northern Correctional Institution and subsequent medical care by Drs. Carson Wright and Mark Buchanan.
- Riles alleged excessive force by Blue and deliberate indifference by Wright and Buchanan for delays/denial of treatment for a broken nose, loss of taste and smell, pain, and recurring nosebleeds.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed Riles’s claims on September 30, 2015. Riles appealed.
- The court addressed three issues on appeal: (1) whether Riles properly exhausted administrative remedies for the excessive-force claim, (2) whether exhaustion could be excused, and (3) whether the deliberate-indifference claims survived summary judgment.
- Administrative Directive 9.6 (AD 9.6) required an informal attempt, an Inmate Request Form (CN 9601), and a timely Level 1 grievance (with the request form attached or explained) within 30 days; procedural noncompliance allows return or rejection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to exhaust administrative remedies for excessive-force claim | Riles says he made verbal complaints and filed grievances (Levels 1–3) and thus exhausted remedies | DOC says Riles did not submit required Inmate Request Form, failed procedural steps, and did not timely file Level 1 | Court: Riles failed to properly exhaust under PLRA because he did not follow AD 9.6 procedures and missed deadlines |
| Availability exception to PLRA exhaustion | Riles contends DOC staff assurances, threats, and AD 9.6 confusion made remedies unavailable | Defendants say procedures were available, clear, and Riles proceeded inconsistently despite availability | Court: Remedies were available; assurances did not excuse noncompliance; AD 9.6 not so opaque as to be unusable |
| Special-circumstances (Hemphill) exception | Riles relies on special circumstances, misinformation, and threats to excuse non-exhaustion | Defendants rely on Ross and proper-exhaustion doctrine to bar exceptions | Court: Ross displaced Hemphill special-circumstances inquiry; courts cannot excuse failure to exhaust outside availability exception |
| Deliberate indifference to medical needs (Wright, Buchanan) | Riles argues delays and refusals to refer caused serious harm (anosmia, ongoing nosebleeds, untreated pain) | Defendants point to medical records, x-ray showing nondisplaced fractures that heal without surgery, treatment provided, and physician judgment that condition untreatable | Court: Summary judgment affirmed—medical records show continued care; no evidence of deliberate indifference; at most negligence, not constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- State Emp. Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland, 718 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies under PLRA)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is mandatory; remedies must be "available")
- Williams v. Priatno, 829 F.3d 118 (2d Cir.) (availability exception analysis post-Ross)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir.) (special-circumstances framework, superseded in part by Ross)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir.) (standards for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir.) (disagreement over medical treatment does not establish Eighth Amendment claim)