Smith v. Kelly
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168216
N.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiff Julio Isley Smith, a prisoner, sued DOCCS officers Kelly and Leavens (named in docket as Levine) under § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, alleging transfer and SHU placement after he reported an assault to the Inspector General on Feb. 27, 2006.
- Plaintiff filed his federal complaint (dated Apr. 17, 2006) before completing DOCCS grievance avenues; he later filed an amended complaint and various grievances/letters years afterward (including Oct. 15, 2010).
- Defendants raised failure-to-exhaust under the PLRA as an affirmative defense; the district court held an evidentiary hearing with testimony from Plaintiff, facility grievance officials, and DOCCS grievance director.
- The court found DOCCS’s three-step IGP (IGRC → Superintendent → CORC) was available at Auburn C.F., and Plaintiff knew the grievance system (he had filed 40+ grievances previously).
- The court rejected Plaintiff’s asserted defenses to exhaustion — threats/intimidation, lack of awareness, misinformation, and substantial compliance — finding the evidence incredible or immaterial and that Plaintiff did not properly file or timely pursue grievances to completion before suing.
- Conclusion: Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; judgment entered for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" | Smith claimed confusion, misinformation, and that transfer/SHU placement chilled grievance filing | DOCCS had a working IGP at Auburn C.F.; procedures were available and known to Smith | Remedies were available; Smith failed to show unavailability |
| Whether defendants forfeited or are estopped from asserting non-exhaustion | Smith alleged defendants inhibited his exhaustion (through transfer or contacts) | Defendants timely raised the defense; no credible evidence defendants prevented exhaustion | No forfeiture or estoppel; defense preserved and valid |
| Whether "special circumstances" excuse non-exhaustion | Smith invoked threats, lack of awareness of superintendent-appeal route, alleged misinformation, and substantial compliance | Defendants argued none of these excused Smith; his filings were untimely or not properly pursued | Court found no special circumstances; explanations were incredible or immaterial |
| Whether Smith substantially complied or otherwise exhausted post-filing | Smith pointed to grievances/letters (Apr. 28, 2006; June 2, 2006; Oct. 15, 2010) and CORC correspondence | Defendants showed no timely filings within DOCCS deadlines and no completed appeals to CORC before suit | Substantial compliance not sufficient; proper, timely exhaustion required; dismissal for failure to exhaust |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA requires exhaustion to allow internal correction and deter premature federal suits)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires "proper" exhaustion in accordance with procedural rules)
- Hemphill v. State of New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (three-part test for evaluating claimed failure to exhaust: availability, forfeiture/estoppel, special circumstances)
- Ruggiero v. County of Orange, 467 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2006) (exhaustion requirement applies broadly to inmate suits)
- Messa v. Goord, 652 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2011) (exhaustion is for judicial administration; no jury on exhaustion facts)
- Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670 (2d Cir. 2004) (circumstances may justify raising claim in disciplinary proceeding as exhaustion in limited situations)
- Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691 (2d Cir. 2004) (confusion about grievance/remedial system can, in some cases, justify alternative exhaustion methods)