Castelan v. Correctional Officer Keenan A. John

Background

Christian Castelan, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, sued Correctional Officer Keenan A. John, Correctional Officer Shaun H. Kerr, and Sergeant Bermann Joseph under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Officers John and Kerr used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that Sergeant Joseph failed to intervene.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that there is no genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. The court described evidence that Castelan was frisked after shouting that he needed a gate opened, became argumentative, and moved toward Officer John. The court found that the defendants’ account showed Officer John used a body-hold restraint, Officer Kerr helped secure Castelan, and no additional force was used after Castelan was handcuffed. Sergeant Joseph arrived after the incident and did not witness any use of force.

Castelan did not submit the required numbered response to the defendants’ statement of undisputed facts under Local Civil Rule 56.1. Instead, he submitted a handwritten declaration containing conclusory assertions that officers kicked and stomped him. The court determined that the defendants’ supported factual assertions were therefore deemed admitted and that Castelan had not submitted admissible evidence sufficient to create a genuine factual dispute.

Failure to Exhaust the Prison Grievance Process

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires incarcerated people to complete available prison grievance procedures before filing certain federal lawsuits. The court explained that New York’s grievance process for staff-harassment allegations, including excessive force, was not complete until the Central Office Review Committee issued a decision or failed to act for 30 days after receiving an appeal.

Castelan filed his lawsuit on October 28, 2022. The Central Office Review Committee did not receive his appeal until October 31, 2022, three days later. The court concluded that Castelan therefore had not completed the grievance process when he sued. The court stated that he was required to wait until November 30, 2022, and that the Committee’s later denial on January 26, 2023, did not cure the premature filing.

The court also found no basis to treat the grievance process as unavailable. It stated that Castelan did not allege, and the record did not show, that prison officials made the process a dead end, made it too confusing to use, or interfered with his efforts through intimidation, misrepresentation, or other conduct.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The court identified Castelan’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an independent and dispositive reason for the ruling, and also held that his failure to produce admissible evidence supporting a factual dispute provided a separate sufficient ground. Because the exhaustion requirement was unmet, the court expressly did not reach the merits of Castelan’s excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims.

The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment for the defendants, terminate the action, and terminate the motion at ECF No. 79.