Massey v. Sapp

Background

Tyrone Massey, representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Department of Correction Captain Marcela Sapp, Corrections Officers Jesus Marmolejos and Kourtney Talton, and the City of New York. His amended complaint concerned a December 2019 fire and identified alleged cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to medical needs.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act barred the claims because Massey had not exhausted available administrative remedies and that the amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox recommended denying the motion. The defendants timely objected, and the district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently.

Exhaustion ruling

The court held that non-exhaustion was clear from the face of the amended complaint. Massey stated that he did not file a grievance because he believed the matter was a staff complaint that was not subject to the grievance process. Although he attached other grievance forms to his opposition, the court found that none concerned the December 2019 fire.

The court also rejected Massey’s arguments that the grievance process was unavailable. It found that his general fear of intimidation or retaliation did not identify a specific threat or conduct preventing him from filing a grievance. The court further found that receiving no response to some earlier grievances did not establish that the process was a dead end, particularly because an available administrative appeal had not been pursued.

Finally, the court explained that although a request to discipline staff may not itself be processed through the grievance system, the substantive issues underlying such a request remain subject to that process. The court concluded that the issues underlying Massey’s fire-related allegations were subject to the Department of Correction’s grievance procedure and that he had not shown an excuse for failing to use it.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels declined to adopt Magistrate Judge Fox’s recommendation. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The court reasoned that the grievance deadline had passed and the failure to exhaust could not be cured. Because it dismissed the amended complaint on procedural grounds, the court did not decide whether the alleged constitutional violations were plausibly stated.