Matthews v. M. Ruquet and D. Rodriguez

Background

Devon Matthews, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision officers M. Ruquet and D. Rodriguez. Matthews alleged that, on September 4, 2023, while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, the officers choked him, punched him in the face, and struck his head with a stick until he lost consciousness. He claimed that this conduct violated the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive force.

Matthews filed a prison grievance about the incident in or around late September 2023. An Inmate Grievance Program supervisor later informed him that the grievance was denied as untimely. Matthews attached a letter stating that he wanted to appeal the grievance to the superintendent. The record contained no appeal to the Central Office Review Committee, the final level of the New York prison grievance process.

Motion and Procedural History

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The defendants served Matthews with the motion papers and the required notice explaining the consequences of failing to respond. Matthews did not file opposition by the original deadline. The court granted multiple extensions, including extensions related to Matthews’s transfers and medical treatment, and warned that no further extensions would likely be granted. Matthews still did not oppose the motion. The court therefore treated the motion as fully submitted and unopposed. The court also granted the defendants’ later request to deem the motion unopposed. In an earlier order, the court denied Matthews’s application for pro bono counsel while granting him another extension to respond.

Legal Standard

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a person incarcerated in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility generally may not bring a federal action about prison conditions until all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. Proper exhaustion requires completing every step required by the prison’s grievance system.

For New York State corrections facilities, the court described a three-step process: filing a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee; appealing an unfavorable decision to the facility superintendent; and appealing the superintendent’s decision to the Central Office Review Committee. The prisoner must complete all three steps before filing suit.

Although an unopposed summary-judgment motion cannot be granted automatically, the court must still determine whether the record supports the moving party’s factual statements and whether the law supports judgment. Uncontroverted facts supported by admissible evidence may be treated as admitted, but the defendants still bear the burden of showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that there was no genuine dispute that Matthews failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The record showed that he completed the first step by filing an initial grievance. The court said it was unclear whether he completed the second step by appealing to the superintendent.

The court concluded, however, that Matthews did not complete the final step of appealing to the Central Office Review Committee. The defendants submitted an uncontroverted declaration and a Central Office Review Committee record listing Matthews’s active and closed cases; that record contained no entry concerning the September 2023 incident. Matthews also testified at his deposition that he did not appeal the grievance to the Central Office Review Committee. He submitted no evidence opposing the motion.

The court further stated that even if Matthews’s June 11, 2024 letter could be viewed as an appeal sent directly to the Central Office Review Committee, sending an appeal directly there would not satisfy the required grievance procedure.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Matthews’s complaint, granted the defendants’ letter motion asking that the summary-judgment motion be treated as unopposed, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and closed the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the Opinion and Order on July 15, 2026.