Click Back Button to Return to Publication
CARL A. LIGON, JR., Plaintiff, -against- DENNIS DOHERTY, et al.,
Defendant(s).
CV 00-0253 (TCP) (ETB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
208 F. Supp. 2d 384; 2002
U.S. Dist. Lexis 11171
June 25, 2002, Decided
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By
order of the undersigned, dated April 4, 2002, the pro se plaintiff, Carl A.
Ligon, Jr., and counsel for the County of Suffolk and its named defendant
correction officers were directed to show cause, in writing, on or before May
3, 2002, why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant
to Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S. Ct. 983, 152 L. Ed. 2d 12 (Feb. 26,
2002).
The
Factual Background
This action was commenced by
counsel, Harry H. Kutner, Jr., representing the plaintiff, on January 13, 2000.
The action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3) and 1988, and seeks
money damages arising from a single episode of alleged assault by Suffolk
County corrections officers at the Suffolk County Jail on January 21, 1999. The
plaintiff seeks damages based on the use of excessive force, false imprisonment
(prisoner isolation) and malicious prosecution (violation of prison
regulations). Supplemental jurisdiction of the district court is invoked with
respect to claims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution and false arrest.
At the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff was no longer an
inmate at the Suffolk County Jail, having been transferred from that facility
on April 19, 1999 to the New York State Hudson Correctional Facility in
Colombia County.
The complaint is devoid of any
allegations as to exhaustion of administrative remedies at the Suffolk County
Jail prior to the initiation of this action. This is confirmed by records
attached to the County Attorney's submission in support of dismissal, by
Assistant County Attorney John D. Aspland, Esq. These records indicate that at the hearing conducted
pursuant to New York General Municipal Law § 50-h, the plaintiff testified that
he did not file any complaint or grievance with the jail authorities prior to
commencement of this action. See Exhibit B at 75-76, annexed to County
submission, dated May 2, 2002. Also annexed at Exhibit A to the County's
submission is a copy of the applicable Correctional Facility Rules &
Regulations of the Suffolk County Sheriff (Revised October 1976) with respect
to the "Resident Grievance and Complaint Procedure" for jail inmates.
See Exhibit A at pp. 8-9. [*386]
Counsel for the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw from this action on
April 1, 2002. The pro se plaintiff failed to appear, contrary to specific
instructions, at a conference held on April 1, 2002 at 10:00 a.m., the return
date of his attorney's application to be relieved, and failed to make any
submission on this show cause order. The court has subsequently been informed
that the defendant on or before April 2002 was returned to custody and is
presently incarcerated at the Suffolk County Jail.
The New York State prison system
maintains a website where a prisoner's whereabouts in the New York State prison
system may be tracked. The court will take judicial notice of the records
posted by the New York State Department of Correctional Services as to the
plaintiff herein. See www.docs.state.ny.us at Inmate Information -
Location/Status Legal Dates/etc. (Carl Ligon, DIN 99R2348). This record
states that the plaintiff was
transferred upstate to the Mid-Hudson Correctional Facility maintained by the
State of New York on April 19, 1999.
DISCUSSION
The
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
(1994 ed., Supp. V), provides:
no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section
1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any
jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies
as are available are exhausted. (Emphasis added.)
In
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S. Ct. 983, 152 L. Ed. 2d 12 (2002), the
court held that the reference to "prison conditions" noted above in
the PLRA applies to "all inmate suits about prison life, whether they
involve general circumstances or particular episodes." 122 S. Ct. at 992.
Where however, as here, an administrative officer has no authority to act on
the subject of a complaint, the inmate has nothing to exhaust. Booth v.
Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 121 S. Ct. 1819, 1822 n. 4, 149 L. Ed. 2d 958
(2001) (The PLRA requires administrative exhaustion of remedies where the
grievance process is authorized to provide some responsive action, even though
it is not authorized to provide money damages which the plaintiff seeks); see
also Stanislas v. Tolson, No.
00-5419, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10733, 2002 WL 718441, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19,
2002) (Raggi, J.). Plaintiffs
who are not in custody at the time of the commencement of an action challenging
prison conditions are not considered "prisoners" under section
1997e(a) and therefore are not subject to the exhaustion requirement under this
provision. Greig v. Goord, 169
F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir. 1999). As noted in Cox v. Malone, 199 F. Supp. 2d 135,
2002 WL 727019 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) "it makes no sense to apply this procedural
requirement to former inmates who can no longer avail themselves of prison
grievance procedures." 199 F. Supp. 2d 135, [WL] at *4.
The same reasoning should apply
here. Even though the plaintiff remained an inmate, and therefore was a
"prisoner" under section 1997e(a), when the action was commenced he
was not a prisoner at the correctional facility where the incident allegedly
occurred, having been transferred to an upstate facility maintained by the
State of New York. Thus the focus here must be on the availability of an administrative
remedy at the time this action was commenced.
This issue was raised in Thomas
v. Capt. Henry, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8086, No. 02-2584, 2002 WL 922388, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2002) (Eaton, M.J.). The plaintiff there had been transferred
from a New York City facility (Rikers Island) to a state facility. The incident
occurred at the city facility and at the time the action was commenced the
plaintiff had been transferred to a correctional facility [*387] maintained by
the State of New York. On the facts there, but with no analysis of the administrative remedies at the
local facility, the court held that the transfer did not relieve the plaintiff
of the administrative grievance procedure since the plaintiff could use the
mails to avail himself of administrative procedures available at the New York
City correctional facility. Id.
Such an administrative remedy is
not available here at the Suffolk County Jail. The County has provided a copy
of the relevant Suffolk County Correctional Facility Rules and Regulations
relating to Resident Grievance and Complaint Procedures. (County Exhibit A at
8.) This states that "there are several ways you may air your complaints
while you are a resident of this facility." Id. The Informal Procedures
involve "speaking to the tier representative of the Resident Liaison
Council" and attempting to resolve the problem. Id. The formal procedure
of filing a written grievance is available in the event that "a mutually
acceptable solution cannot be reached between you and the duty lieutenant . . .
." Id. The availability of these procedures is limited to "complaints
while you are a resident of this Facility." Id.
Since plaintiff was transferred to a State
facility prior to commencement of this action, the above administrative
procedure at the Suffolk facility was no longer available to him at the time
this action commenced. Accordingly there was no administrative remedy procedure
available for him to exhaust. A critical fact in making this determination is the plaintiff's transfer
date, which is based on the information maintained by the New York State
Department of Correction at its website, noted above. Should this information
be inconsistent with the records maintained by the County defendants, they may
renew their application to dismiss.
For
the foregoing reasons, the County's motion to dismiss under Porter v. Nussle is
denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
June 25, 2002
E.
THOMAS BOYLE
United States Magistrate Judge