36 F.4th 445
2d Cir.2022Background
- Saeli was jailed at Chautauqua County Jail in 2016–2018; two incidents are relevant: a Sept. 12 handcuffing he found painful (policy-related) and a Sept. 24 cell/shower extraction involving force by Officers Genther and Steenburn.
- The Jail’s grievance policy requires an informal grievance first (then a formal grievance within 5 days of the incident) but expressly excludes "issues that are outside the authority of the jail captain to control."
- Saeli contends he attempted to file informal grievances: he says he was told the handcuffing policy was set by the County (nongrievable) and that a lieutenant discouraged him from filing a grievance after the Sept. 24 extraction.
- Defendants produced an informal grievance form (dated 9/25/16 1430) describing the Sept. 24 incident; the form, however, contains a marginal note referencing the Sept. 26 disciplinary hearing, making the date on the form impossible unless explained.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Officers and County for failure to exhaust under the PLRA. Saeli appealed; the Second Circuit affirmed as to the Officers but vacated and remanded as to the County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saeli exhausted available administrative remedies for excessive-force claims against Officers | Saeli claims he submitted a timely informal grievance and the Jail failed to act, rendering remedies de facto unavailable | Defendants point to Jail records showing no timely filed grievance and to the internal inconsistencies on the form/date | Held for Defendants as to the Officers: no genuine dispute that Saeli did not timely submit the informal grievance; summary judgment for Officers affirmed |
| Whether the Jail’s grievance procedure applied to Saeli’s Monell claim against Chautauqua County (handcuffing policy) | Saeli argues the handcuffing policy was outside the jail captain’s control (set by the Sheriff), so no grievance remedy was available to him | County contends grievance policy applies and exhaustion is required for the Monell claim; alternatively, County argues the Monell claim rises/falls with the individual claims | Held for Saeli as to applicability: grievance policy by its terms excludes matters outside the jail captain’s authority; County’s handcuffing policy was set by the Sheriff, so no administrative remedy existed and PLRA nonexhaustion defense fails; judgment as to County vacated |
| Whether exhaustion under the PLRA is assessed claim-by-claim | Saeli (and governing precedent) contend availability must be evaluated for each asserted claim | County argued overlap/same incident collapses the claims | Held: PLRA exhaustion is claim‑specific; a grievance process applying to one claim does not automatically cover a distinct claim excluded by the policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (three kinds of de facto unavailability excusing exhaustion)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (prison rules define proper exhaustion; exhaustion is an affirmative defense)
- Hubbs v. Suffolk County Sheriff's Dep’t, 788 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2015) (defendant bears initial burden to show grievance process exists and applies; plaintiff bears burden to show de facto unavailability)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires official policy or custom causing deprivation of rights)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (availability of administrative process depends on substance of claim, not the remedy sought)
- Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108 (availability/applicability of administrative remedies are legal questions)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment requires more than metaphysical doubt)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: admissible evidence must permit a reasonable jury to find for nonmoving party)