Wilson v. McKenna
15-3496
| 2d Cir. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Alvin Wilson, a Connecticut inmate proceeding pro se, sued Corrections Officer Brooke McKenna under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to medical needs based on an alleged September 16, 2012 incident.
- Wilson filed various DOC forms: an Inmate Administrative Remedy Form on Sept. 20, 2012 (checked "Grievance" box but treated by DOC as a Health Services Review), an Inmate Request Form on Oct. 9, 2012 (mentioning lack of treatment), and forms dated Oct. 17, 2012 complaining about McKenna; DOC records did not show receipt of the Oct. forms.
- Under Connecticut DOC Administrative Directive 9.6, inmates must attempt informal resolution, submit an Inmate Request Form, then, if needed, timely file a Level 1 grievance (attaching the request form or explaining its absence), with specific deadlines and appeal procedures.
- The district court granted summary judgment for McKenna, concluding Wilson failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; Wilson appealed but did not contest exhaustion in his brief.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Wilson failed as a matter of law to properly exhaust because he never filed a timely Level 1 grievance against McKenna and his Level 2/3 filings were premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA before suing | Wilson implicitly contends exhaustion was satisfied or the process was unavailable (not argued on appeal) | Wilson failed to follow AD 9.6: no timely Level 1 grievance against McKenna and procedural requirements unmet | Court: Wilson abandoned the argument on appeal and, on the merits, failed to properly exhaust as a matter of law |
| Whether DOC's treatment of forms rendered remedies "unavailable" under Ross v. Blake | Wilson did not argue unavailability below or on appeal | DOC treated the Sept. 20 form as Health Services Review and did not process some Oct. forms | Court declined to consider availability because issue was not raised; exhaustion nonetheless lacking |
| Whether premature appeals (Level 2/3) can substitute for Level 1 compliance | Wilson submitted Level 2/3 forms | McKenna: premature appeals do not satisfy AD 9.6 timing and filing requirements | Court: Premature appeals do not cure failure to file Level 1; exhaustion inadequate |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on exhaustion grounds | Wilson argued other merits but not exhaustion on appeal | McKenna moved for summary judgment asserting failure to exhaust | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for McKenna due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned)
- Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep't, 706 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (PLRA requires "proper exhaustion" complying with agency deadlines and procedural rules)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. 2016) (administrative remedies are excused only where unavailable: dead end, opaque, or obstructed)
- Guzman v. Local 32B-32J, Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, 151 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1998) (appellate courts may decline to consider issues not raised below)