Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiff Raysun Smith, a DOCCS inmate proceeding pro se, sued multiple correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events arising at Fishkill C.F.: an alleged January 5, 2015 assault and subsequent alleged retaliatory acts.
- On January 5, 2015 Smith alleges Def. Miller punched him, other officers (Tabor, Diaz, Kothari, Heal, Llorens) joined, he was beaten while restrained, taken to RMU where a nurse allegedly refused to document injuries, and then sent to SHU.
- Smith filed grievances and appeals (IGRC, superintendent, CORC) about the January 5 incident; some appeals were denied.
- Smith alleges later retaliatory acts after his grievances: C.O. Allen throwing liquids; a false misbehavior report by Rufino (cosigned by Sioco) denied at discipline and appeals; two cell searches (Mar 1 and Mar 7) including alleged spitting on a Muslim prayer rug and boots on bedding by O’Rafferty and Rufino; dirty trays.
- Defendants Rufino, Riollano, O’Rafferty, Del Bianco, Sioco, Allen, and Harris moved to dismiss portions of the complaint for failure to exhaust and for failure to state a claim; the motion was unopposed by plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies (PLRA) for certain retaliation/conditions claims | Smith alleges he exhausted remedies generally for the January 5 incident; seeks to proceed on post‑January 5 claims (liquid thrown, dirty trays, cell searches) | DOCCS records show no CORC appeals for those specific claims; defendants argue claims should be dismissed for non‑exhaustion | Court: At 12(b)(6) stage, may not consider defendants’ external exhaustion evidence not incorporated in complaint; dismissal for non‑exhaustion denied at this time |
| 2. First Amendment retaliation — Allen (throwing liquid) | Smith contends Allen’s act was retaliatory following grievance about Jan 5 | Defendants say no causal connection: Allen had no apparent involvement or knowledge of Jan 5 incident | Court: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead facts showing Allen knew of protected activity or a causal nexus |
| 3. First Amendment retaliation — false misbehavior report (Rufino/Sioco/Harris) | Smith alleges Rufino issued a false ticket in retaliation for his grievance; appeal denied by Harris | Defendants contend insufficent facts to infer retaliatory motive despite temporal proximity | Court: Dismissed — temporal proximity alone insufficient; complaint lacks facts on prior disciplinary record, vindication, or statements showing retaliatory intent |
| 4. Eighth Amendment failure to protect / incitement — Del Bianco | Smith alleges Del Bianco threatened to "kick his ass" and said he would send officers to handle him, and that Miller later called Del Bianco before the assault | Defendants argue insufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim | Court: Denied dismissal — allegations that Del Bianco incited/encouraged staff assault state plausible Eighth Amendment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, not a pleading requirement)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard re: substantial risk of harm)
- Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2003) (filing grievances is protected activity for retaliation claims)
- Espinal v. Goard, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (PLRA exhaustion requires compliance with prison grievance procedures)