Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Pro se prisoner Charles J. Smith alleges Corrections Officer Jaynes issued a false misbehavior report and sent him to SHU in retaliation for trying to go to the law library / requesting to speak to a sergeant and for filing a prior lawsuit. Only a First Amendment retaliation claim against Jaynes remained after initial screening.
- Smith claims some personal property was missing after transfer to SHU and filed grievances about property; he also contends he submitted a separate grievance about Jaynes’s retaliation that staff never filed.
- Defendant Jaynes moved for summary judgment arguing Smith failed to exhaust DOCCS’s three-step Inmate Grievance Program (IGP) before filing suit.
- The record shows Smith filed grievances about property but not a filed grievance specifically alleging Jaynes’s retaliation; Smith appealed consolidated grievances to CORC but never received a CORC response.
- The court found an appeal of a disciplinary determination does not substitute for the IGP grievance process for a retaliation claim.
- Because factual disputes remain (e.g., whether a retaliation grievance was submitted but lost, or Smith was misled about grievance procedures) and discovery has not been completed, the magistrate judge recommended denying the summary-judgment motion without prejudice to renew after discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith exhausted administrative remedies for his retaliation claim | Smith says he submitted a grievance about retaliation (which staff failed to file) and believed it was consolidated with other July grievances | Jaynes says no grievance about retaliation was filed; only property grievances exist | Court recommended finding exhaustion not shown and that summary judgment on exhaustion is premature because disputed facts remain |
| Whether an appeal of the disciplinary process exhausts a retaliation claim | Smith contends he exhausted via disciplinary appeal | Jaynes contends disciplinary appeal is not the IGP and does not exhaust retaliation claims | Court held disciplinary appeal is insufficient to exhaust a retaliation claim; separate IGP process required |
| Whether failure to exhaust may be excused because remedies were unavailable | Smith argues remedies were unavailable: grievance lost, staff misconduct, misinformation by officer, and SHU inmates’ inability to file | Jaynes argues IGP was available and Smith filed relevant grievances about property | Court held unavailability is a factual question under Ross v. Blake; given record gaps and need for discovery, denial without prejudice recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative remedies need not be exhausted if unavailable; availability exceptions described)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (requires "proper exhaustion" including compliance with procedural rules)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden and standards)
- Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 201 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000) (summary judgment rarely granted against plaintiff who lacked opportunity for discovery)
- Messa v. Goord, 652 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2011) (court may hold an evidentiary hearing on exhaustion but discovery may be preferable)