Adams v. George

Background

Anna Adams, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Correctional Officer M. George under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion identifies George as an employee of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, sued in his individual capacity. Adams sought compensatory and punitive damages for alleged constitutional violations while she was confined at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.

Adams alleged that on November 24, 2017, she and approximately nine other Muslim inmates went to the designated Muslim chapel to conduct Friday prayer services. She alleged that George initially denied them access, interrupted prayer in the chapel lobby, directed her to stand against a wall, and delayed their entry into the chapel until after the prescribed prayer time. She also alleged that George made harassing statements in response to her grievances, filed a false disciplinary document accusing her of creating a disturbance, and singled her out for adverse treatment. The disciplinary charge was resolved in her favor after a hearing at which she was found not guilty for lack of supporting evidence.

Adams alleged that she filed grievances about George’s conduct and appealed some grievance decisions. The documents attached to her complaint included a grievance concerning the chapel incident and a response dismissing that grievance. The opinion states that the materials did not include an appeal to the Central Office Review Committee, the highest level of administrative review in the prison grievance process.

Claims and procedural posture

The court understood Adams’s allegations to assert claims involving interference with religious liberties, retaliation, and equal protection under § 1983. The court stated that the allegations were sufficient to assert plausible claims for interference with religious liberties and retaliation, but concluded that all of the claims failed as a matter of law because Adams had not exhausted the available administrative remedies.

George moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Alternatively, he moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, which applies when the record shows no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion was unopposed.

Court’s reasoning

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court described New York’s process as requiring an inmate to file a grievance, appeal to the superintendent, and then appeal to the Central Office Review Committee. The court stated that proper exhaustion requires an appeal to that final level and a final decision on the grievance.

The court explained that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant must raise and support it. It also explained that, ordinarily, a court cannot grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion based on non-exhaustion unless the failure is clear from the complaint and documents incorporated into it. Here, Adams had attached and incorporated grievance materials, placing exhaustion before the court.

George submitted a declaration from Rachel Seguin, the Assistant Director of the Inmate Grievance Program, stating that the grievances relevant to Adams’s claims had not been fully exhausted. A printout from the Central Office Review Committee showed that the grievances referenced in Adams’s complaint had not been appealed there. The court concluded that this established Adams’s failure to exhaust under both the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis and the alternative Rule 56 analysis.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted George’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), alternatively under Rule 56, without opposition. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and the action. The opinion does not state that the motion or action was dismissed with or without prejudice.