Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiff James N. Scott, a DOCCS inmate, alleged violation of his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights after Muslim inmates were not permitted to attend Jumm’ah services at Upstate Correctional Facility on December 25, 2015.
- Scott filed an IGRC grievance on December 26, 2015; IGRC and the Superintendent ruled in his favor on January 5 and January 21, 2016 respectively; Scott appealed to CORC, which received the appeal February 11, 2016 and issued a decision on May 18, 2016.
- Scott commenced this federal § 1983 action on April 1, 2016—before CORC issued its final determination—and amended his complaint later; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust and lack of evidence of discriminatory intent.
- Plaintiff did not contact CORC or the IGP supervisor about the status of his appeal before filing suit, and his letters to IGRC/CORC were dated after he filed the federal complaint and after the 45‑day receipt deadline in the DOCCS regulations.
- The magistrate judge concluded administrative remedies were not exhausted prior to filing and that CORC’s roughly two‑month delay did not render the grievance process unavailable under PLRA exceptions; recommended dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit | Scott contends CORC effectively refused or delayed decision making, rendering remedies unavailable | Defendants argue Scott filed suit before CORC decision and did not complete DOCCS grievance steps | Court: Scott failed to exhaust; CORC’s ~2‑month delay did not make remedies unavailable |
| Whether CORC delay excuses PLRA exhaustion requirement | Scott argues delay made grievance process unavailable under Ross v. Blake exception | Defendants say delay was short and Scott did not follow procedures to check status | Court: Delay was short; Scott did not contact CORC/IGP within regulatory timeframes; exception not met |
| Whether merits of equal protection claim must be reached | Scott asserts discriminatory denial of religious services | Defendants contend exhaustion failure disposes of claim and merits need not be addressed | Court: Declined to reach merits because of exhaustion failure |
| Proper disposition | Scott seeks to proceed on his amended complaint | Defendants seek judgment dismissing claims | Court: Recommended granting summary judgment; dismiss amended complaint without prejudice so Scott may exhaust and refile |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (availability exception to mandatory exhaustion)
- Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116 (exhaustion must occur before filing; post‑filing CORC decision does not cure defect)
- Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (solicitude for pro se litigants but not exemption from procedural rules)