Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Philip Deblasio v. David Rock

September 24, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. Mcavoy, Senior United States District Judge


In this pro se prisoner civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Philip DeBlasio alleges that twenty-three employees of the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") violated his constitutional rights by denying him adequate medical care, interfering with his right to exercise his religion, subjecting him to excessive force, and subjecting him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Dkt. No. 1.) Currently pending is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 55.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, despite having been advised of the consequences of failing to do so and having been granted four extensions of the deadline by which to do so. (Dkt. No. 55 at 3; Jan. 19, 2011, Text Order; Feb. 16, 2011, Text Order; Mar. 31, 2011 Text Order; June 27, 2011, Text Order.) For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.


Plaintiff, an inmate currently in DOCCS custody at Five Points Correctional Facility, complains in this action of a series of events that occurred at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in 2006 and 2009. (Dkt. No. 1.)

A. Incidents in 2006

In his verified complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on December 28, 2006, Defendant Physician Assistant Fisher Nesmith stopped at his cell during sick-call rounds. (Dkt. No. 1 at 11.) Plaintiff told Defendant Nesmith that he needed to see the doctor for his chronic back pain and herniated discs. Id. Defendant Nesmith would not allow Plaintiff to see the doctor. Id. at 12. This happened "several times" again after December 28, 2006. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that on December 28, 2006, Defendant Correction Officer Kevin Holden was assigned to pack Plaintiff's personal belongings because Plaintiff was moving to a new cell. (Dkt. No. 1 at 12.) Thereafter, pages were missing from each of Plaintiff's three copies of the Koran. Id. One of the three Korans had to be destroyed because it was missing so many pages. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Holden is "defin[i]tely responsible" for the missing pages because he "was the only person to pack [P]laintiff's property . . ." Id.

B. Incident with Extraction Team

Plaintiff alleges that one night in early August 2009*fn1 , he complained of sharp pains in his left ribcage area and blood in his urine.*fn2 (Dkt. No. 1 at 12.) Defendant Correction Officer Kelsey Lenney told Plaintiff he would call a nurse.*fn3 Id. After speaking to Defendant Nurse Della Howley, Defendant Lenney returned twenty minutes later and asked Plaintiff if he had requested a sick call. Id. at 12-13. Plaintiff was enraged and started banging the gate and asking to see a sergeant. Id. at 13. When Defendant Sergeant John Busse responded to the scene, Plaintiff explained the situation and Defendant Busse said he would take care of it. Id. Two hours after Plaintiff had first complained of the pain, Defendant Howley arrived at his cell "with a very negative attitude." Id. Plaintiff "was so mad she wouldn't help him [that] he threw water at her and hit [Defendant] Lt. Richard Juckett as well." Id.

After Plaintiff threw the water, an extraction team was mobilized to remove him from his cell. (Dkt. No. 1 at 13.) This team included Defendant Juckett, Defendant Busse, Defendant Correction Officer Adam Rivers, Defendant Lenney, Defendant Correction Officer Richard Dempster, and Defendant Correction Officer Richard Buell. Id.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Juckett told Plaintiff that "he was going to OBS*fn4 one way or the other" even if Defendant Juckett "had to drag [P]laintiff out of the cell himself." Id. Plaintiff told Defendant Juckett that he was "not suicidal and should be sent to F-Block" as originally scheduled. Id. Defendant Juckett "was then just about to spray [P]laintiff in the face when [P]laintiff pleaded with him to take him out without gas[s]ing him . . ." Id. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the extraction team moved him to an observation room and then beat him with sticks, their fists, and their feet. Id. At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that the members of the extraction team beat him with their fists for about a minute. (Dkt. No. 55-16 at 84:17-24, 86:24-87:10.)

Defendants assert that they did not use any force on Plaintiff. Defendant Dempster declares that the only physical contact that any member of the extraction team had with Plaintiff during the cell extraction was when Defendant Buell placed Plaintiff's wrists and legs in restraints. (Dkt. No. 55-5 ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 55-8 ¶ 18.) Defendant Dempster declares that Plaintiff "voluntarily complied with [a] strip frisk, which is standard procedure for inmates being processed into" the mental health unit. (Dkt. No. 55-5 ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 55-8 ¶¶ 20-21.) After that was done, the team "escorted [P]laintiff to an observation cell," which was "accomplished without incident." (Dkt. No. 55-5 ¶¶ 13-14.) Defendant Juckett declares that "[t]he only physical contact that I or any member of the extraction team had with Inmate DeBlasio that day was to place him in restraints, conduct a pat frisk, and be present when the inmate was subject to strip frisk." (Dkt. No. 55-8 ¶ 25.) Defendant Lenney declares that he "had no physical contact with inmate DeBlasio at all." (Dkt. No. 55-9 ¶ 20.) Defendant Rivers declares that he "had no physical contact with inmate DeBlasio during this engagement." (Dkt. No. 55-11 ¶ 13.)

After Plaintiff was secured in the observation cell, the extraction team members left the area, returned to their regular duties, and did not see Plaintiff again that day. (Dkt. No. 55-5 ¶¶ 15-16; Dkt. No. 55-3 ¶¶ 13-14; Dkt. No. 55-8 ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 55-9 ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 55-1 ¶ 12.) No paperwork was prepared documenting a use of force. (Dkt. No. 55-11 ¶ 14.) It is standard procedure to prepare a Use of Force Report when force is used on an inmate. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that after the extraction team left, he remained in the observation cell all night without any medical attention or treatment. (Dkt. No. 1 at 13.) At his deposition he testified that he suffered only from "discomfort [and] bruises" as a result of the incident. (Dkt. No. 55-16 at 83:6-8.) About twenty-four hours after the incident, Plaintiff complained to an officer of chest pains. (Dkt. No. 56 at 2 ¶ 15, 5.) Plaintiff allowed Defendant Howley to examine him. Id. Plaintiff told Defendant Howley only that he had indigestion. Id. Defendant Howley found that Plaintiff had "no signs of distress." Id.

C. Incident at Conference Room

The day after the incident with the extraction team, Defendant Correction Officer Scott Hamel escorted Plaintiff to a conference room to be interviewed by Defendant Dr. Battu*fn5 and Defendant Social Worker Sarah Wetherell.*fn6 (Dkt. No. 1 at 14.) Dr. Battu had been asked to see Plaintiff to "possibly prescribe medications to control his behavior or adjust medications that were already prescribed." (Dkt. No. 55-2 ¶ 9.) Dr. Battu often performs such interviews alone, but was accompanied by Defendant Wetherell "[b]ecause of the violent nature of this inmate." Id. ¶ 10. Defendant Wetherell had "worked with [P]laintiff for a number of years . . . and [was] familiar with his history and patterns of behavior." (Dkt. No. 55-20 ¶ 3.) Defendant Wetherell declares that the RCTP Coordinator was also present. (Dkt. No. 55-20 ¶ 13.)

Defendant Sergeant Crispin Murray declares that he supervised Defendant Hamel as he escorted Plaintiff to the appointment. (Dkt. No. 55-10 ¶ 5.) Once Plaintiff was in the conference room, Defendant Murray moved to a desk several feet away from the door to the room. (Id. ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 55-2 ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff alleges that he told Defendants Battu and Wetherell about the incident with the extraction team. (Dkt. No. 1 at 14.) He alleges that Defendant Battu said that it was none of his concern because he was just "there to handle medications and suicide prevention" and that because Plaintiff threw water at Defendant Howley he "may have deserved" what happened. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wetherell "refused to comment or help [Plaintiff] in any way at all." Id. Plaintiff alleges that he called Defendant Wetherell "a snake sellout C.O. bitch" and she stormed out of the room and talked to Defendant Correction Officer Scott Hamel. Id. Dr. Battu declares that Plaintiff "became verbally abusive to Sarah Wetherell, nearly bringing her to tears, and when I tried to calm him down, [P]laintiff became abusive toward me." (Dkt. No. 55-2 ¶ 14.) Dr. Battu declares that Plaintiff's behavior "brought the interview to an end. The officer waiting outside moved in and escorted [P]laintiff out." (Dkt. No. 55-2 ¶ 15.) Defendant Wetherell declares that when "the session started to get hostile, the RCTP Coordinator stood up, and in doing so triggered a prearranged signal to security personnel to move in." (Dkt. No. 55-20 ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hamel entered the conference room and rushed Plaintiff into a cell. (Dkt. No. 1 at 14.) Defendant Hamel declares that he entered the conference room because "I believe I observed [Plaintiff] stand up during the interview in disobedience of my direct order to him not to do so. When the inmate stood up, I automatically moved in, took control of the restraints, and escorted him out of the room and back to his observation cell." (Dkt. No. 55-7 ¶ 9.) Defendant Murray declares that when a "problem occurred in the interview room," he supervised Defendant Hamel as Defendant Hamel escorted Plaintiff back to his cell and Defendant Stemp joined them "to provide additional security coverage." (Dkt. No. 55-10 ¶¶ 7-9.)

The parties dispute what happened next. Defendant Hamel declares that before he placed Plaintiff in his cell, he asked him if he wanted to take a shower because inmates in the observation unit generally take showers on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. (Dkt. No. 55-7 ¶ 10.) Defendant Hamel declares that Plaintiff declined and then turned and head-butted him, hitting Defendant Hamel's forehead just over his left eye and splitting the skin open. Id. ¶ 11. Defendants Murray and Stemp also declare that Plaintiff head-butted Defendant Hamel. (Dkt. No. 55-10 ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 55-19 ¶ 6.) Defendant Hamel declares that he "instinctively" pushed Plaintiff "forward and down to the floor with my left hand" and that Plaintiff banged his head on the way down. (Dkt. No. 55-7 ¶ 12.) Defendant Hamel declares that Plaintiff did not stay down and kept kicking and trying to bite Defendant Hamel. Id. ¶ 13. Defendant Murray declares that he ordered Defendant Stemp to "go in and pull the inmate out of the cell so they could get control of him." (Dkt. No. 55-10 ¶ 13.) Defendant Hamel declares that he and Defendant Stemp "used the wrist restraints to lift [Plaintiff] out of the cell and onto the floor in the hallway." (Dkt. No. 55-7 ¶ 16.) Defendant Hamel declares that once Plaintiff was on the floor in the hallway, he took control of Plaintiff's legs while Defendant Stemp took control of Plaintiff's upper body. Id. ¶ 17. Defendant Stemp declares that he took control of Plaintiff's upper body by putting one knee on his back and the other on his head until he calmed down. (Dkt. No. 55-19 ¶ 10.) Defendant Hamel declares that Plaintiff calmed down and they all remained that way until Defendant Hamel and Defendant Stemp were relieved by other staff. (Dkt. No. 55-7 ¶ 18.)

Defendant Stemp declares that he "used only such force as was necessary to subdue the inmate. Nobody kicked, punched or otherwise asserted unnecessary force against" Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 55-19 ¶ 13.) Defendant Murray declares that he "personally did not have any physical contact with the inmate." (Dkt. No. 55-10 ¶ 16.) Defendant Murray declares that given Plaintiff's "unprovoked assault on the escorting officer, his attempts to further assault the officer during the course of the take-down, and his refusal to comply with staff direction, I do not believe that . . . the actions of the men under my supervision violated any of [P]laintiff's federally protected rights." Id. ¶ 21.

Plaintiff's version of this incident is quite different. In his verified complaint, Plaintiff alleges that after Defendant Hamel escorted him to his cell, Defendants Stemp and Murray came into the cell. (Dkt. No. 1 at 14.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Murray removed Plaintiff's handcuffs, said "how tough are you now disrespecting Nurse Howley and Wetherell and Dr. Battu," and slapped Plaintiff on the left side of his face with an open hand. Id. All of the officers then beat Plaintiff, got him onto his stomach, handcuffed him, and kicked him several more times in the face, head, and body. Id. at 14-15. At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he did not do anything to any of the officers until Defendant Murray removed his handcuffs and punched him in the face. Plaintiff testified that it was only then that "I put my hands up and I started fighting with him." (Dkt. No. 55-16 at 99:12-100:17.)

When the relief officers arrived, Defendants Murray, Stemp, and Hamel escorted Plaintiff to the clinic to be examined for injuries. (Dkt. No. 55-10 ¶ 17.) Plaintiff and the officers were examined and photographed and Defendant Murray completed a Use of Force Report. (Dkt. No. 55-10 ¶ 18.) Medical records show that Plaintiff suffered bruises on his right shoulder, red cheeks, a quarter-sized bump on his scalp, two raised areas on the back of his scalp, and a bruised ear. (Dkt. No. 55-7 at 7.)

D. Conditions of Confinement

Plaintiff alleges that after this incident he was subjected to various harsh conditions of confinement. (Dkt. No. 1 at 15.)

1. Handcuff Incident with Defendant Segovis

Plaintiff alleges that on August 18, 2009, Defendant Correction Officer Roswell Segovis handcuffed Plaintiff to take him to the shower. (Dkt. No. 1 at 15.) Defendant Segovis noticed that Plaintiff was wearing socks and refused to let him shower. Id. He then left Plaintiff handcuffed in his cell for five hours. Id. Plaintiff pleaded with Defendant Segovis to remove the handcuffs so that he could use the bathroom. Id. Defendant Segovis refused and after several hours Plaintiff "had no choice but to wet his pants and then defecate on himself." Id. Defendant Segovis declares that he left Plaintiff handcuffed because Plaintiff "took the handcuffs hostage and refused to put his hands through the feed-up slot so that they could be removed." (Dkt. No. 55-18 ¶ 4.)

Later, Defendant Segovis issued a misbehavior report charging Plaintiff with committing an unhygienic act. (Dkt. No. 1 at 15.) The hearing officer sentenced Plaintiff to seven days of restricted diet. Id. Defendant First Deputy Superintendent Jeffrey Tedford "co-signed" the order for restricted diet. Id. The punishment "was brought to the attention" of Defendant Sergeant David Winchip, who "was going along with the entire [charade]." Id.

2. Hot Water

Plaintiff alleges that he was not able to get hot water because he was not given a bucket. (Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) On August 19, 2009, Plaintiff asked Defendant Sergeant Peter DePalo for hot water. (Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) Defendant DePalo said "Muslims don't deserve hot water. You'll get that when you get to hell." Id. On August 24, 2009, Plaintiff told a watch commander, in the presence of Defendant Winchip, that he was not receiving hot water. Id. at 18. Defendant Winchip said he would see to it that Plaintiff got a bucket for hot water. Id. Later that day, Defendant Winchip came to Plaintiff's cell and said "You won't get that bucket[] today you dirty white Muslim wigger." Id.

3. Drinking Water

Plaintiff alleges that he once went without water for a week. (Dkt. No. 1 at 15.) He alleges that during the week that he went without water, Defendant Correction Officer William Powers was responsible for turning on Plaintiff's water and failed to do so. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6.) At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that Defendant Segovis was also responsible. (Dkt. No. 55-16 at 150: 2-5, 6-9.)

4. Food

Plaintiff alleges that on August 18, 2009, Defendant Correction Officer Alan White and Defendant Segovis played with Plaintiff's breakfast tray and Plaintiff had to plead with them in order to get it. (Dkt. No. 1 at 16.) At lunch*fn7 Defendant White gave Plaintiff only a quarter cup of juice to drink and no lunch tray. Id. Later, Defendant DePalo came to Plaintiff's cell asking for the empty lunch tray. Id. Plaintiff told him that he was never given a lunch tray. Id. Defendant DePalo looked under Plaintiff's bed and did not see a tray. Id. That night at dinner an officer served Plaintiff a special diet loaf instead of regular food and told him that he would receive it for seven days as punishment for not giving back his lunch tray. Id. This punishment was ordered by Defendants White and Segovis and "co-signed" by Defendant DePalo. Id. at 17. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants White and Segovis "have a history" with him and "blatantly harass[ed]" Plaintiff "to disturb his Fast of Ramadan." Id. at 16-17.

Plaintiff alleges that on one occasion, Defendant Segovis gave Plaintiff pork instead of the special diet loaf. Id. Defendant Segovis said "You know you want to eat some swine." Id. at 18.

5. Recreation and Movement

Plaintiff alleges that he was not allowed to move outside his cell at all when Defendant Segovis was assigned to his block. (Dkt. No. 1 at 17.)

6. Showers

Plaintiff alleges that on one occasion, Defendant Segovis would not allow Plaintiff to shower. Id. When Plaintiff reported this to Defendant DePalo, he said "That's life in F-block for Muslims." Id.

7. Bibles

Plaintiff alleges that on August 31, 2009, a chaplain came to Plaintiff's cell to deliver two Bibles. (Dkt. No. 1 at 16.) Defendants Powers and Segovis told the chaplain to leave the Bibles and that they would give them to Plaintiff when they were not busy. Id. Defendant Powers came to Plaintiff's cell and "said [he] was banging all day." Id. Plaintiff said it was not him who was banging. Id. Defendant Powers said he would investigate and that Plaintiff would not be getting his Bibles. Id. On or about September 8, 2009, Defendant Powers came to Plaintiff's cell, told him he had discovered that it was not Plaintiff who was banging, and apologized. Id. However, he did not give Plaintiff his Bibles. Id. The record shows that Plaintiff received the Bibles on September 12, 2009.*fn8 (Dkt. No. 55-6 at 28.)

E. Restrictions on Religious Practice

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Superintendent David Rock and Defendant CORC Director Karen Bellamy violated his religious rights in three ways. (Dkt. No. 1 at 18.) First, he alleges that he was not allowed to demonstratively pray in the BHU recreation pen. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rock allows Christians to pray but "is obviously discriminating against the Muslims" by prohibiting demonstrative prayer. Id. at 18-19. Second, he alleges that BHU and SHU inmates are not allowed to have razors, which prevents Muslims from shaving their pubic and armpit hair as required by their faith. Id. at 19. Third, Plaintiff alleges that he is not given Halal food. Id.

F. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this Court on September 23, 2009. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff's complaint sets forth three causes of action: (1) religious discrimination; (2) "assault and cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of DOCS workers"; and (3) a request that Plaintiff receive "proper medical attention at all times." (Dkt. No. 1 at 20.) Plaintiff requests injunctive relief (being allowed to pray in the recreation pen, being allowed to shave his pubic hair, and given Halal food) and damages. Id. at 21.

Defendants now move for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 55.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.


A. Legal Standard Governing Unopposed Motions for Summary Judgment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is warranted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing, through the production of admissible evidence, that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Only after the moving party has met this burden is the nonmoving party required to produce evidence demonstrating that genuine issues of material fact exist. Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 272-73 (2d Cir. 2006). The nonmoving party must do more than "rest upon the mere allegations . . . of the [plaintiff's] pleading" or "simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86 (1986). Rather, a dispute regarding a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In determining whether a genuine issue of material*fn9 fact exists, the Court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Salvino, 542 F.3d 290, 309 (2d Cir. 2008).

When a plaintiff fails to respond to a defendant's motion for summary judgment, "[t]he fact that there has been no [such] response . . . does not . . . mean that the motion is to be granted automatically." Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir. 1996). Rather, the Court must (1) determine whether any facts are disputedin the record presented on the defendants' motion, and (2) determine whether, based on the undisputed material facts, the law indeed warrants judgment for the defendants. See Champion, 76 F.3d at 486; Allen v. Comprehensive Analytical Grp., Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 229, 232 (N.D.N.Y. 2001); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(b)(3).

B. Legal Standard Governing Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

To the extent that a defendant's motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is based entirely on the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint, such a motion is functionally the same as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As a result, "[w]here appropriate, a trial judge may dismiss for failure to state a cause of action upon motion for summary judgment." Schwartz v. Compagnise Gen. Transatlantique, 405 F.2d 270, 273 (2d Cir. 1968) (citations omitted); accord, Katz v. Molic, 128 F.R.D. 35, 37-38 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ("This Court finds that . . . a conversion [of a Rule 56 summary judgment motion to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint] is proper with or without notice to the parties."). Accordingly, it is appropriate to summarize the legal standard governing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.

A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The requirement that a plaintiff "show" that he or she is entitled to relief means that a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)) (emphasis added). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . requires the . . . court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense . . . [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged -- but it has not shown --that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 1950 (internal citation and punctuation omitted).

"In reviewing a complaint for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Courts are "obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally." Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.


A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Regarding Claims Against Defendants Nesmith and Holden

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nesmith would not allow Plaintiff to see a doctor for back pain and that Defendant Holden ripped pages from Plaintiff's Korans. (Dkt. No. 1 at 11-12.) Defendants argue that these claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 55-23 at 13-14.) Defendants are correct.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). In order to properly exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA, inmates are required to complete the administrative review process in accordance with the rules applicable to the particular institution to which they are confined. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). In New York state prisons, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") has a well-established three-step inmate grievance program. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 7, § 701.7 (2010).

Generally, the DOCCS Inmate Grievance Program ("IGP") involves the following procedure for the filing of grievances. First, an inmate must file a complaint with the facility's IGP clerk within twenty-one calendar days of the alleged occurrence. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 7, § 701.5(a) (2010). A representative of the facility's inmate grievance resolution committee ("IGRC") has sixteen calendar days from receipt of the grievance to informally resolve the issue. Id. at (b)(1). If there is no such informal resolution, then the full IGRC conducts a hearing within sixteen calendar days of receipt of the grievance, and issues a written decision within two working days of the conclusion of the hearing. Id. at (b)(2).

Second, a grievant may appeal the IGRC decision to the facility's superintendent within seven calendar days of receipt of the IGRC's written decision. If the grievance involves an institutional issue (as opposed to a DOCCS-wide policy issue), the superintendent must issue a written decision within twenty calendar days of receipt of the grievant's appeal. Grievances regarding DOCCS-wide policy issues are forwarded directly to the central office review committee ("CORC") for a decision under the process applicable to the third step. Id. at (c).

Third, a grievant may appeal to CORC within seven working days of receipt of the superintendent's written decision. CORC is to render a written decision within thirty calendar days of receipt of the appeal. Id. at (d).

If a prisoner has failed to properly follow each of the applicable steps prior to commencing litigation, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006).

Here, Jeffrey Hale, the Assistant Director of the Inmate Grievance Program for DOCCS, declares that there "are no CORC appeal records that correspond to the December 28, 2006, events as alleged in [P]laintiff's complaint regarding back pain or the loss of personal or religious property at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility." (Dkt. No. 55-6 ¶ 7.) CORC records show that Plaintiff did not file any CORC appeals between October 2006 and October 2008. (Dkt. No. 55-6 at 5.) Indeed, Plaintiff admitted at his deposition that he did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies regarding Defendant Holden's alleged desecration of the Korans.*fn10 (Dkt. No. 55-16 at 57:17-58:5.) Therefore, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claims against Defendants Nesmith and Holden.

Plaintiff's failure to exhaust, however, does not end the inquiry. The Second Circuit has held that a three-part inquiry is appropriate where a prisoner has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 686, 691 (2d Cir. 2004).*fn11 First, "the court must ask whether [the] administrative remedies [not pursued by the prisoner] were in fact 'available' to the prisoner." Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 686 (citation omitted). Second, if those remedies were available, "the court should . . . inquire as to whether [some or all of] the defendants may have forfeited the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion by failing to raise or preserve it . . . or whether the defendants' own actions inhibiting the [prisoner's] exhaustion of remedies may estop one or more of the defendants from raising the plaintiff's failure to exhaust as a defense." Id. (citations omitted). Third, if the remedies were available and some of the defendants did not forfeit, and were not estopped from raising, the non-exhaustion defense, "the court should consider whether 'special circumstances' have been plausibly alleged that justify the prisoner's failure to comply with the administrative procedural requirements." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted).

Here, as discussed above, an administrative remedy was available to Plaintiff. Defendants preserved the exhaustion defense by asserting it in their answer to the complaint. (Dkt. No. 39 ¶ 18.) The record before the Court on this unopposed motion for summary judgment indicates neither that Defendants should be estopped from asserting the defense nor any special circumstances justifying Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims against Defendants Nesmith and Holden.

B. Claims Regarding Failure to Provide Medical Care

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Buell, Busse, Dempster, Howley, Juckett, Lenney, and Rivers *fn12 failed to provide him with adequate medical care. (Dkt. No. 1at 11-14.) Defendants argue that there are "neither objective nor subjective facts to support Plaintiff's conclusory medical indifference claim." (Dkt. No. 55-23 at 14-17.) Defendants are correct.

1. Defendants Lenney, Busse, and Howley

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lenney, Busse, and Howley failed to adequately respond to his complaints of ribcage pain and blood in his urine. (Dkt. No. 1 at 12-13.)

There are two elements to a prisoner's claim that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment right to receive medical care: "the plaintiff must show that she or he had a serious medical condition and that it was met with deliberate indifference." Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation and punctuation omitted). "The objective 'medical need' element measures the severity of the alleged deprivation, while the subjective 'deliberate indifference' element ensures that the defendant prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind." Smith v. Carpenter, 316 F.3d 178, 183-84 (2d Cir. 2003).

The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff did not suffer from a serious medical condition. A "serious medical condition" is "a condition of urgency, one that may produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain." Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 607 (2d Cir. 1990) (Pratt, J. dissenting) (citations omitted), accord, Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1154 (1995); Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 702 (2d Cir. 1998). Relevant factors to consider when determining whether an alleged medical condition is sufficiently serious include, but are not limited to: (1) the existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; (2) the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities; and (3) the existence of chronic and substantial pain. Chance, 143 F.3d at 702-03. Here, Plaintiff alleges that he complained to Defendants Lenney, Busse, and Howley of "sharp pains in his left ribcage area and the pissing of blood." (Dkt. No. 1 at 12.) Defendant Lenney declares that Plaintiff complained to him of pain in his side but did not mention anything about blood in his urine. (Dkt. No. 55-9 ¶¶ 4-5.) When Plaintiff allowed Defendant Howley to examine him the next day, he stated only that he had indigestion. (Dkt. No. 56 at 5.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff's ribcage pain and the blood he reported in his urine significantly affected his daily activities or caused him chronic and substantial pain. The record before the Court, therefore, does not reflect that Plaintiff suffered from "a condition of urgency, one that may produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain."

Even if Plaintiff had raised a triable issue as to the objective prong of his Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendants Lenney, Busse, and Howley, the Court would grant summary judgment on this claim because Plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact that any of these Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Medical mistreatment rises to the level of deliberate indifference only when it "involves culpable recklessness, i.e., an act or a failure to act . . . that evinces 'a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm.'" Chance, 143 F.3d, 698, 703 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994)).

Defendants Lenney and Busse are correction officers, not medical staff members. (Dkt. No. 1 at 8; Dkt. No. 55-9 ¶ 1.) "Non-medical personnel engage in deliberate indifference where they intentionally delayed access to medical care when the inmate was in extreme pain and has made his medical problem known to attendant prison personnel." Baumann v. Walsh, 36 F. Supp. 2d 508, 512 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). Here, as discussed above, there is no evidence that Plaintiff was in "extreme pain." Moreover, the undisputed facts show that neither Defendant Lenney nor Defendant Busse intentionally delayed Plaintiff's access to medical care. Defendant Lenney declares that he called Defendant Howley regarding Plaintiff's complaints of pain. (Dkt. No. 55-9 ¶ 4.) By Plaintiff's own admission, Defendant Howley came to his cell two hours after he first complained of pain. (Dkt. No. 1 at 13.) A two-hour wait for medical care is not the type of delay that indicates deliberate indifference. See Baumann, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 512 (denying defendants' motion to dismiss where plaintiff alleged that correction officer delayed care for his injured arm for three weeks). Therefore, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismisses the Eighth Amendment medical care claims against Defendants Lenney and Busse.

Regarding Defendant Howley, to establish deliberate indifference on the part of medical staff, an inmate must prove that (1) a prison medical care provider was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that the inmate had a serious medical need; and (2) the medical care provider actually drew that inference. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837; Chance, 143 F.3d at 702-703. The inmate then must establish that the provider consciously and intentionally disregarded or ignored that serious medical need. Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 835; Ross v. Giambruno, 112 F.3d 505 (2d Cir. 1997). The undisputed facts show that Defendant Howley came to Plaintiff's cell to tend to his pain but that Plaintiff threw toilet water on her before she could examine him. (Dkt. No. 1 at 13; Dkt. No. 56 ΒΆ 11.) Thus, the undisputed facts show that the failure to provide immediate care to Plaintiff was the result of his own conduct ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.