Smith v. Udayan

Background

Sincere Smith brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and proceeded without a lawyer. He sued Cordero, Udayan, Robinson, Davis, Jarvis, Otaiza, Rodriguez, and Annucci, whom the opinion identifies as current and former employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Smith asserted federal claims for excessive force, failure to intervene, retaliation, and violation of procedural due process, along with a New York state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The claims arose from a June 13, 2019 incident in the Visit Room at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Smith alleged that Officer Cordero handcuffed him, slammed him to the ground, and beat him after a frisk. He alleged that Officers Udayan, Robinson, Davis, and Jarvis watched and failed to intervene. Defendants gave a different account, asserting that Smith and another incarcerated person began fighting, that Cordero used chemical agent and then forced Smith to the ground and handcuffed him. Hearing Officer Otaiza handled the resulting disciplinary hearing.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Smith did not contest Defendants’ statement of material facts, so the court treated those facts as undisputed.

Federal Claims and Administrative Exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal civil-rights action. For prisoners in the New York State system, the relevant process generally requires three steps: filing a grievance, appealing to the facility superintendent, and appealing to the Central Office Review Committee, or CORC.

The court concluded that Smith completed only the first two steps. Smith claimed that he filed a grievance about the incident and appealed after receiving a response from the Inmate Grievance Program Supervisor. It was undisputed, however, that he did not appeal to CORC after receiving no response from the superintendent. The court held that failing to pursue that available appeal meant Smith had not exhausted his administrative remedies.

The court also rejected Smith’s arguments that the grievance process was unavailable. It found that Smith did not show that the process was a dead end, too unclear to use, or obstructed by prison officials through intimidation, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. The court stated that the absence of a response did not by itself make the process unavailable and that the materials Smith submitted showed he could file a grievance and had received a response from the grievance supervisor.

The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all of Smith’s federal claims. Because the time for exhausting those claims had passed, the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice.

State-Law Claim

Smith also asserted intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law. The court held that New York Correction Law § 24 prevents federal courts from hearing state-law claims against correctional employees in their individual or personal capacities. It therefore granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that claim and dismissed it without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissed the state-law claim without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Defendants, terminate the motion, and close the case.