Trowell v. Ellis

Background

Ramziddin S. Trowell, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, alleged that events occurred on October 18, 2023, while he was detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island and later at a courthouse. According to the Complaint, Correctional Officer Ellis questioned his medical pass for a walking cane and refused to transport him to court at the scheduled time. Trowell alleged that Ellis later threatened him after learning that he had made a 311 complaint. He also alleged that, while he was confined in a courthouse cell, another incarcerated person flooded the cell with toilet water, urine, and feces, and that officers did not promptly respond to requests for help.

Trowell sued Correctional Officers Ellis and Clarke and the City of New York. The court had previously dismissed claims against the New York Department of Correction and against “The Owners of Rikers Island,” and had added the City of New York as a defendant. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss, including on the ground that Trowell had not exhausted required administrative remedies.

Exhaustion requirement

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a person incarcerated in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit about prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or another federal law. Proper exhaustion requires completing the grievance process according to the facility’s rules, including applicable deadlines and appeals.

The court explained that exhaustion is not required when administrative remedies are unavailable. The court described unavailability as including a grievance process that is a dead end, is too unclear to use, or is obstructed by officials through intimidation, misrepresentation, or other improper conduct.

For events at Rikers Island, the governing process was the Inmate Grievance and Request Program. The program required four steps: filing a grievance through a Form 7101R or a 311-call complaint; appealing to the commanding officer; appealing to the division chief; and appealing to the Department of Correction Central Review Office Committee.

Court’s analysis

The court understood Trowell’s claims to involve delayed transportation to court, retaliation by Ellis for making a 311 complaint, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement allegedly resulting from that retaliation. The court found that the Complaint showed only that Trowell had completed the first step for the delayed-transportation claim. It found that he had not completed the remaining appeals for that claim and did not appear to have filed initial grievances for the retaliation or conditions-of-confinement claims.

The court also concluded that the short period between the alleged incident and the filing of the lawsuit made completion of all four grievance steps implausible. The opinion contains inconsistent dates concerning the Complaint: one passage says it was filed on November 3, 2023, while another refers to a November 3, 2024 docket date and describes the interval as sixteen days. The court also noted that Trowell’s certification was dated October 18, 2023, the day of the incident, and reasoned that he could not have received a grievance decision and completed three appeals that same day.

Disposition

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the motion to dismiss. The Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court stated that Trowell may reinstitute the lawsuit after exhausting the required procedures or if he shows that the procedures were unavailable. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Trowell and close the case.