Zulu v. Barnhart
9:16-cv-01408
| N.D.N.Y. | Aug 22, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Arkil LionKing Zulu, a New York State prison inmate, alleges that on January 18, 2015 corrections officers at Marcy assaulted him, causing facial injuries that required stitches and subsequent headaches.
- Zulu says he filed grievances about the January 18 incident while at Marcy (Jan. 22 and Feb. 1, 2015) and again after transfer to Upstate (Feb. 15, 2015), and that he sent related letters to DOCCS IG, the FBI, and other agencies; he also alleges prison staff interfered with his attempts to forward grievances.
- Defendants produced IGP records and declarations from Marcy and Upstate IGP supervisors stating Zulu did not file grievances about the incident at either facility; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust under the PLRA.
- The magistrate judge found genuine disputes of material fact about whether Zulu attempted to file and was prevented from filing grievances (i.e., whether administrative remedies were "available") and therefore that exhaustion could not be resolved on summary judgment.
- Recommendation: deny defendants' summary judgment motion without prejudice and hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes about exhaustion; if prison officials thwarted grievance filing, exhaustion may be excused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zulu exhausted administrative remedies before filing §1983 suit | Zulu says he filed and amended grievances at Marcy and filed again at Upstate, and that prison staff blocked or returned his grievance submissions | Defendants say IGP records and supervisor declarations show no grievance about the Jan. 18 assault was filed at either facility | There are genuine factual disputes about filing and interference; summary judgment on exhaustion denied and an evidentiary hearing recommended |
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" under PLRA so exhaustion was required | Zulu contends remedies were unavailable insofar as officials thwarted or intercepted his grievance efforts | Defendants contend IGP was available and Zulu is familiar with it (multiple prior CORC appeals) and thus required to follow its procedures | Court applies Ross standard: availability is disputed; factual issues preclude ruling for defendants on paper |
| Whether thwarting/misrepresentation can excuse exhaustion | Zulu alleges prison mail and staff rebuffed/returned grievance materials and he sent multiple follow-up letters to IGP director | Defendants assert procedural rules and deny relevant grievance filings occurred; point to DOCCS policy and records | If credited, Zulu’s evidence could show "machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation" excusing exhaustion; factual finding needed at hearing |
| Appropriate remedy on disputed exhaustion defense | Zulu seeks to proceed to merits given alleged unavailability; defendants seek dismissal | Defendants seek summary judgment dismissal for non-exhaustion | Magistrate recommends denying summary judgment and holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputes before adjudicating exhaustion; dismissal premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. 2016) (availability of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to PLRA exhaustion; courts must consider whether procedures were effectively available)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion, complying with an agency’s critical procedural rules)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (PLRA exhaustion mandatory for prisoner suits about prison conditions)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (framework for excusing exhaustion where officials’ actions impede grievances)
- Messa v. Goord, 652 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2011) (evidentiary hearing appropriate when exhaustion turns on disputed factual issues)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (test for whether confinement imposes a protected liberty interest)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (minimum due process protections required in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (supervisory liability may require proof of policy/custom or deliberate indifference)
- Ayers v. Ryan, 152 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1998) (limitations on calling witnesses and confidentiality issues in prison disciplinary proceedings)