Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Charles J. Smith, an inmate at Cayuga Correctional Facility, sued Corrections Officer Jaynes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation arising from a July 19, 2018 incident.
- Smith worked in the mess hall and requested to go to the law library; Jaynes says Smith refused a direct order and issued a misbehavior report.
- After the report, Smith was placed in the Special Housing Unit and, following a hearing, was found guilty; that determination was affirmed on administrative appeal.
- Smith filed at least one grievance the same day (logged as CAY-18375-18 and categorized as an inmate property grievance); the court previously held that grievance did not exhaust his retaliation claim.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed: Smith sought judgment on his claim; Jaynes moved for judgment on exhaustion and merits. The magistrate judge recommends granting Jaynes’ motion and denying Smith’s motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA | Smith contends grievances were unavailable or lost and that he filed multiple grievances (including an unprocessed retaliation grievance) | Jaynes shows Smith successfully used the grievance system on other occasions and the only recorded grievance was categorized as a property grievance; no proof the alleged retaliation grievance was ever filed/processed | Court: Smith failed to properly exhaust; Ross exceptions inapplicable; defendant entitled to summary judgment on exhaustion grounds |
| Whether Smith engaged in protected conduct / suffered adverse action | Smith asserts he asked to go to the law library and to speak to a supervisor and that being forced to clean and receiving a misbehavior report were retaliatory | Jaynes argues the request to speak to a supervisor is not protected, directing mess-hall work was not adverse, and the misbehavior report was justified by Smith’s conduct | Court: Court assumed library request and report satisfy protection/adversity for argument’s sake but found other elements lacking |
| Causation / retaliatory motive (link between protected activity and misbehavior report) | Smith alleges Jaynes retaliated (refers generally to earlier incidents and “winds of retaliation”) | Jaynes points to the guilty finding at the disciplinary hearing and absence of any statements showing retaliatory motive | Held: No triable issue of retaliatory motive or causation; guilty finding supports that the report would have been issued regardless of alleged animus |
| Qualified immunity for Jaynes | N/A (Smith argues constitutional violation) | Jaynes asserts qualified immunity because reasonable officers could disagree about issuing discipline and record supports nonretaliatory basis | Held: Jaynes entitled to qualified immunity; the unlawfulness was not clearly established given the valid disciplinary outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits)
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (exceptions when grievance remedies are effectively unavailable)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (requires "proper" exhaustion following procedural rules)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden rules)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment and inferences)
- Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2014) (elements of a prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (retaliation claim framework)
- Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1996) (protected conduct must be a substantial or motivating factor)
- Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2001) (courts should view prisoner retaliation claims with skepticism)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (qualified immunity standard)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent officials)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (unlawfulness must be apparent under pre-existing law)