Whittington v. Ponte

Background

Matthew Whittington brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Commissioner Joseph Ponte, numerous corrections officials, and the City of New York. He alleged constitutional violations connected to events during his incarceration at Rikers Island. The court construed his allegations as involving excessive force, unreasonable searches, inadequate medical care, false disciplinary reports, retaliation, conditions of confinement, visitation restrictions, and related due-process claims. Whittington represented himself.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party. Whittington submitted a legal memorandum and documents, but he did not submit affidavits, respond directly to the defendants’ factual statement, or provide different evidence. The court nevertheless said it would read his submissions liberally because he was representing himself.

Personal involvement

The court held that Whittington had not alleged or supported the personal involvement of any named individual defendant in several claims. A person sued under Section 1983 generally must have personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation. The court identified claims involving medical care, searches, conditions of confinement, and other incidents for which Whittington had not identified a defendant who participated in the alleged conduct. He also had not provided facts supporting supervisory liability.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies

The court held that Whittington had failed to complete the prison grievance process for most of his claims. The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a prisoner to use available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court found that Whittington’s handwritten documents labeled “Grievances” were not in the required form, were not shown to have been received by the City, and were not shown to have been resolved or appealed through the required process.

Whittington argued that harassment and transfers between facilities prevented him from appealing or pursuing grievances. The court rejected those arguments. It noted that Whittington had filed more than two dozen other grievances during the relevant period, which supported the conclusion that the grievance process was available to him. The court therefore granted summary judgment on 22 listed claims, including claims involving medical care, due process, searches, excessive force, retaliation, visitation, and conditions of confinement.

Remaining excessive-force claim

The court considered the merits of Whittington’s remaining excessive-force claim, which concerned a January 16, 2015 search. According to the undisputed facts, Whittington refused orders to remove his belt and jewelry, put a chain in his mouth, attempted to strike an officer, and continued struggling. Captain Collazzo used two one-second bursts of chemical agent. Whittington was then restrained, decontaminated, and medically examined.

The court held that the force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. It emphasized that Whittington was resisting, that the chemical agent caused no lasting injury shown in the record, and that he received medical treatment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on this claim.

Remaining due-process claims

The court rejected Whittington’s claim that officials used false reports to impose discipline. It explained that an inmate does not have a constitutional right to be free from false accusations by themselves. Here, Whittington received notice of the infraction, a hearing, and a finding that he was not guilty of possessing a contraband weapon. The court concluded that he was not deprived of a protected liberty interest through insufficient process.

The court also rejected Whittington’s challenge to his Red Identification status. It found that he received notice of the designation, notice of a hearing, a hearing, and a hearing determination. The court concluded that he received the process required for that designation.

Finally, the court rejected Whittington’s challenge to the restriction of his visits to non-contact visits for 180 days. The restriction was imposed for the good order of the facility and was approved by the appropriate prison officials. In light of Whittington’s undisputed disciplinary and use-of-force record, the court concluded that the restriction was reasonably related to legitimate safety and order concerns.

Claim against New York City

The court granted summary judgment to the City of New York on Whittington’s municipal-liability claim. A municipality cannot be held responsible under Section 1983 merely because it employs an allegedly wrongful actor. Whittington had not established a constitutional violation and had not alleged or provided evidence of a City policy or custom that caused his injuries.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, resolving Docket Number 158, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court declined to consider claims raised for the first time in Whittington’s opposition brief. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.