Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2022Background
- On June 6, 2020, Marquise D. Williams (a pretrial detainee) was housed in Delta 2 at Orange County Correctional Facility (OCCF); a "no contact" order existed between Williams and inmate Arnold Melendez.
- Officer Bosch (the Delta Control Officer) opened the unit for recreation and, according to defendants, mistakenly allowed Williams out before Melendez was secured; a fight followed in which Williams initiated punches and was then joined/assaulted by Melendez and another inmate and sustained facial injuries requiring hospital treatment.
- Plaintiff filed Grievance No. 20-0177 (June 7, 2020) blaming the officer in the bubble and Officer Salvucci for failing to keep the inmates separate; the grievance did not name Sergeant Cimorelli or describe an earlier conversation Williams alleges he had with Cimorelli.
- The grievance was processed and the coordinator issued a partial denial; there is a factual dispute whether Williams timely appealed (he contends his Part II signature was forged and that he appealed; staff contend he accepted the decision).
- Video shows Salvucci radioing for help, segregating other inmates, and attempting to isolate Melendez; Cimorelli arrived, attempted to restrain Williams, retrieved OC spray and deployed two short bursts to stop the fight; five additional officers then responded.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (unopposed by plaintiff); the Court (Seibel, J.) found Williams failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Cimorelli, and on the merits granted summary judgment for defendants on the Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claims; any state-law claims dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLRA exhaustion as to Sgt. Cimorelli | Williams claims Cimorelli ignored his morning request to be moved and thus failed to protect him | Grievance did not name or describe Cimorelli or that alleged pre-fight conversation; therefore remedies as to Cimorelli not exhausted | Court: Claim against Cimorelli not exhausted; dismissed for failure to exhaust |
| PLRA exhaustion as to Officer Salvucci | Williams contends he attempted to appeal (signature forged); thus he exhausted | No timely appeal shown; defendants say plaintiff accepted grievance decision | Court: Material dispute exists about the appeal; did not resolve exhaustion for Salvucci and proceeded to merits |
| Failure-to-protect (Fourteenth Amendment) | Williams: officers failed to keep him safe and failed to intervene | Defendants: Williams was the initial aggressor; Salvucci radioed for help, isolated inmates and gave orders; officers did not act with deliberate indifference | Court: On the merits, Salvucci entitled to summary judgment (no deliberate indifference); Cimorelli claim not exhausted |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Williams may have intended a state negligence claim | Defendants urged dismissal after federal claims resolved | Court: Declined supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison officials have constitutional duty to protect inmates from inmate-on-inmate violence)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (pretrial detainee failure-to-protect claims governed by Fourteenth Amendment)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies for all inmate suits)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (grievance procedures do not implicitly require naming every responsible official)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2011) (PLRA requires proper use of all procedural steps)
- Hubbs v. Suffolk Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 788 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2015) (defendants bear initial burden to show grievance process applies)
- Romano v. Ulrich, 49 F.4th 148 (2d Cir. 2022) (administrative process deemed unavailable where it is a dead end, opaque, or obstructed)