Scott v. Kastner-Smith
298 F. Supp. 3d 545
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff ShaVelle Scott, proceeding pro se, alleged that on July 10, 2014 Sgt. Keith Kastner-Smith assaulted him during a cell transfer at Steuben County Jail; Lt. Amy Bouck and Sgt. Lorrie Gardner were present and (allegedly) failed to protect him.
- Scott was a detainee at the jail during the incident and practices Islam (Ramadan fasting), which contextualizes the pre-dawn meal dispute that precipitated the events.
- Jail staff contend Scott filed hostile inmate medical/request slips and refused orders; officers escorted him to another cell, restrained and briefly handcuffed him, and removed/replaced him without observable injury.
- Scott submitted multiple medical request slips and a letter to a state judge accusing Sgt. Kastner-Smith of using excessive force, but did not complete the jail’s formal grievance form process or pursue appeals to the Commission of Correction Citizen’s Policy and Complaint Review Council (CPCRC).
- Jail officials investigated after Scott’s letter; Major Whitmore and Lt. Sutton concluded the use of force was limited and appropriate and Major Whitmore responded in writing that Scott’s claims were without merit.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds under the PLRA; the court granted summary judgment, finding Scott failed to properly exhaust and dismissing the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Scott exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA? | Scott relied on medical/request slips and a letter to a judge as having put officials on notice and (implicitly) exhausting remedies. | Scott did not complete the jail's required Grievance Form or pursue the multi-step appeal to the CPCRC; medical slips and letters are not the approved process. | Court held Scott failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies and summary judgment for defendants was warranted. |
| Can informal communications (medical slips/letter) satisfy "proper exhaustion"? | Scott argued his submissions alerted officials and prompted a response. | Defendants argued and produced jail grievance rules showing formal Grievance Form and appeals are required; informal slips insufficient. | Court held informal communications do not satisfy Woodford/PLRA exhaustion requirements. |
| Were administrative remedies unavailable or excused (Hemphill/Ross exceptions)? | Scott alleged grievances were not returned and hinted grievances may have been destroyed or ignored. | Defendants showed grievance procedure was available, Scott used it in other matters, and there is no record he filed or appealed; FOIL search found no relevant CPCRC appeal. | Court found no evidence remedies were unavailable or waived; Hemphill/Ross exceptions did not apply. |
| Appropriate disposition: dismissal with prejudice or without? | Scott argued he had not received responses and implied procedural problems. | Defendants showed Scott had ~7 weeks before transfer and theoretically enough time to file grievance and appeal; no attempt documented. | Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because Scott had reasonable time to exhaust and did not do so. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (discussing summary judgment standard and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standards)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant can meet burden by showing nonmovant lacks sufficient evidence at trial)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies to inmate suits alleging excessive force)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (requirement of "proper exhaustion" of administrative remedies)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (inmates need not plead exhaustion but must exhaust before suit)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir.) (framework for evaluating excuses to exhaustion defense)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (clarifying availability inquiry for exhaustion defenses)