Kielly v. Sean P. Donovan

Background

Sara Kielly brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, against Sean P. Donovan. She alleged that Donovan, a correctional officer at Downstate Correctional Facility, was deliberately indifferent to her suicidal thoughts, violating the Eighth Amendment. Donovan moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment may be granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that matters to the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Kielly testified that on October 21, 2020, she told Donovan that she was having suicidal thoughts while he was making rounds. She testified that Donovan laughed and told her to “go ahead and kill yourself.” Donovan testified that their only conversation concerned seeking medical help after Kielly’s suicide attempt. Kielly later injured herself with part of her broken glasses and was taken for medical treatment and later placed under medical and suicide observation.

Grievance Process

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires an incarcerated person to exhaust available prison grievance remedies before bringing a § 1983 action. The New York grievance process described in the opinion had three steps: an initial grievance, an appeal to the facility superintendent, and an appeal to the Central Office Review Committee, or CORC.

Kielly submitted her grievance 28 days after the October 21, 2020 incident, although the ordinary deadline was 21 days. She requested an extension based on her suicide attempt, medical recovery and monitoring, and transfers among facilities. The court found that these were mitigating circumstances and held that her grievance was timely.

Kielly asserted that she then pursued the required appeals but received no responses. The corrections department’s grievance director searched its records using both of Kielly’s identification numbers and found no CORC appeal concerning the incident. The record did not establish whether Kielly’s appeal had been mailed, intercepted, or ignored.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Kielly had not shown that she properly submitted an appeal to CORC. It also rejected her argument that the grievance process was unavailable. The court found no evidence that the process was a dead end, unclear, or obstructed by prison officials. It noted that the record showed the process had handled nearly 50 grievances filed by Kielly and that she was familiar with the process. The court further found that Kielly’s suggestion that her submissions may have been tampered with was unsupported by evidence.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Donovan’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Donovan’s favor, terminate the motion, and close the case.