Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Young, a New York state inmate, filed a § 1983 suit alleging First Amendment retaliation (and a free-exercise claim) arising from events at Clinton Correctional Facility involving Corrections Officers Stephen Shipman and Roxanne Sawyer.
- Young filed an inmate grievance against Sawyer on March 8, 2018, appealed to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) on April 27, 2018 (received May 10, 2018); CORC’s 30-day response period ran from receipt and expired June 9, 2018.
- Young signed and mailed his Complaint in late June 2018—before receiving CORC’s decision—so defendants moved for summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust and that retaliation claims lacked causation.
- Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended granting summary judgment: dismissing without prejudice for failure to exhaust the CORC appeal and dismissing the retaliation claims with prejudice on the merits; no objections were filed to the report.
- The District Court adopted the exhaustion recommendation (dismissing the Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust) but rejected the magistrate’s grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claims, finding triable issues of fact (noting plaintiff’s testimony that he overheard a discussion between Sawyer and Shipman about his grievance, a closely timed denial of access to Jumu’ah, and a misbehavior report).
- The Court directed the Clerk to close the case; dismissal was without prejudice, so Young may refile after exhaustion. The Court declined to enter judgment for defendants on the retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Young exhausted CORC remedies before suing | Young filed suit shortly after CORC’s deadline and CORC later delayed beyond that; exhaustion was effectively unavailable | CORC response was not received before suit; Young sued prematurely, so did not exhaust | Court: Failure to exhaust; claim dismissed without prejudice (CORC delay did not render process unavailable) |
| Whether Shipman and Sawyer retaliated for Young’s grievance | Young says he overheard Sawyer tell Shipman he ‘‘wrote [a] grievance,’’ then was denied Jumu’ah and issued a (false) misbehavior report | Defendants deny the conversation and say the misbehavior report and endorsement were proper and would have occurred regardless | Court: Triable issues of fact exist as to causation; rejected summary judgment for defendants on retaliation claims |
| Whether temporal proximity alone proves causation | Young contends the close timing plus overheard conversation supports causation | Defendants argue temporal proximity is insufficient without direct proof of retaliatory intent | Court: Temporal proximity plus circumstantial evidence (overheard conversation, endorsement, denials of conduct) raises a genuine dispute for trial |
| Whether defendants met their burden to show they would have acted absent protected conduct | Young disputes the factual bases of the misbehavior report | Defendants assert they would have disciplined Young regardless of the grievance | Court: Defendants did not establish as a matter of law they would have punished Young regardless; factual dispute precludes summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (defines when prison grievance procedures are ‘‘available’’ for exhaustion purposes)
- Williams v. Priatano, 829 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2016) (post-Ross guidance on availability and exhaustion in the Second Circuit)
- Brandon v. Kinter, 938 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2019) (elements for First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1996) (shifts burden to defendants to show they would have acted absent protected conduct)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (prisoner retaliation claims require cautious review given ease of fabrication)
- Arzuaga v. Quiros, 781 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2015) (prison mailbox rule for pro se inmate filings)