Ortiz v. New York City
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-02047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Juan Ortiz v. City of New York, Judge Carter granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because Ortiz had not completed required prison grievance procedures.
Juan Ortiz’s federal civil-rights case was closed after the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust required prison grievance procedures. The defendants were the City of New York, Dr. Jayanta Ray, and Physician’s Assistant Thomas Schwaner.
What happened
Juan Ortiz, representing himself, sued the City of New York, Dr. Jayanta Ray, and Physician’s Assistant Thomas Schwaner under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that he was kept in handcuffs overnight and then denied medical care for numbness and severe pain in his hands.
The court held that Ortiz had not completed the required prison grievance process before filing this case. The court found that the complaint showed this because only about 18 days passed between the alleged incident and the filing of the original complaint, while the required grievance process would take about five or six weeks, including appeals.
In Juan Ortiz v. City of New York, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Ortiz v. New York City · No. 1:23-cv-02047
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Juan Ortiz, who was representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York, Dr. Jayanta Ray, and Physician’s Assistant Thomas Schwaner. Ortiz alleged that, beginning on February 15, 2023, he was kept in handcuffs until the next morning while being returned to his cell from the law library. He said his hands then became numb and began tingling, that he experienced severe pain, and that medical personnel told him nothing could be done. He also alleged that he called 311, made numerous complaints, and had not received medical care or treatment by the time he filed his amended complaint.
The original complaint also named the New York City Department of Correction and Correction Officer Caraballo #4513. The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction and allowed Ortiz to amend his complaint. Ortiz later filed an amended complaint adding the medical-care claim, removing Correction Officer Caraballo as a defendant, and naming Dr. Ray and Physician’s Assistant Schwaner.
Motion and legal standard
Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Defendants later asked the court to treat the motion as unopposed because Ortiz had not responded. The court issued an order directing Ortiz to explain why the motion should not be treated as unopposed, but Ortiz did not respond. The court therefore considered the motion unopposed while applying the special consideration given to filings by people representing themselves.
The court focused on the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires a prisoner to use available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court explained that New York City’s inmate grievance procedure requires a complaint and, if necessary, appeals through the Commanding Officer, Division Chief, and Central Office Review Committee. The court also noted that exhaustion is ordinarily a defense rather than something a complaint must plead, but a court may dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when the failure to exhaust is clear from the complaint itself.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Ortiz’s failure to complete the grievance process was apparent from the complaint. The alleged incident occurred on February 15 or 16, 2023, and Ortiz signed and dated his original complaint on March 3, 2023. Even assuming he began the grievance process on February 16 by calling 311 and making complaints, the court found that completing all required steps and appeals would take approximately five or six weeks. The court therefore concluded that Ortiz could not have completed the process before filing the action.
The court did not decide whether the alleged handcuffing constituted excessive force or whether the defendants denied Ortiz constitutionally adequate medical care. It granted the motion based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Disposition
The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.