Valverde v. Folks

Background

Angel Valverde, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, sued Correction Officers Jaquan Folks, Tyrone Cunningham, and Lawton Brown; Sergeant Julio Gonzalez; Lieutenant Alfonso Orrico; Commissioner’s Hearing Officer Robert Mayes; and Nurse Gina Frangella. He alleged that officers used excessive force during two incidents on August 29, 2018, that officials failed to intervene, and that Mayes violated his procedural due-process rights during a disciplinary hearing. The opinion states that claims against Superintendent Michael Capra and Superintendent Robert Morton had previously been dismissed; the remaining defendants sought summary judgment.

The parties gave conflicting accounts of the August 29 incidents. Defendants said Valverde refused orders, attacked an officer, and later threatened officers while receiving medical treatment. Valverde said an officer assaulted him first and that Folks, Cunningham, Brown, and others beat him. The court did not decide whether these conflicting accounts created a trial-worthy factual dispute because it resolved the claims primarily on exhaustion grounds.

Exhaustion of prison grievance procedures

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires incarcerated people to properly complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing claims about prison conditions under Section 1983. Valverde filed a grievance about the alleged excessive force, but the grievance was denied. He said he mailed an appeal directly to the state prison system’s central review committee. The record contained no record that the appeal was filed with either the facility grievance clerk or the central review committee.

The court held that Valverde did not properly appeal. Under the applicable rules, he was required to submit the appeal to the grievance supervisor at the facility where he originally filed the grievance, rather than sending it directly to the central review committee. The court also rejected Valverde’s argument that officials interfered with his mail, finding that his evidence was speculative and that a prison official’s investigation found no evidence of staff misconduct or improper mail processing.

The court further held that the grievance system was not so confusing that no reasonable prisoner could use it. Valverde had received the facility’s written denial and instructions for appealing, and the rules provided a way to seek confirmation if the appeal was not acknowledged. The court distinguished an earlier related proceeding in which the grievance process did not explain how to appeal an unfiled grievance. Because Valverde failed to exhaust available remedies, the court held that his claims were barred and that all defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Nurse Frangella’s failure-to-intervene claim

The court separately addressed the claim against Nurse Frangella. It held that even if Valverde had properly exhausted, he could not state a Section 1983 failure-to-intervene claim against her because she was a registered nurse, not a law-enforcement official. The court explained that the constitutional duty to intervene recognized in the cited cases applies to law-enforcement officials protecting people from violations by other law-enforcement officials. It rejected Valverde’s reliance on a state-law case involving nurses’ duties to protect hospital patients because that case did not address federal constitutional violations by law-enforcement personnel.

Hearing Officer Mayes’s procedural-due-process claim

The court also independently granted judgment to Hearing Officer Mayes on Valverde’s procedural-due-process claims. Valverde alleged that Mayes improperly limited witnesses and video evidence, ignored inconsistencies in testimony, and issued an inadequate written decision.

The court found that Valverde received advance written notice of the charges, a hearing assistant, permission to call 24 witnesses, an opportunity to present documents and question witnesses, and a written decision identifying the evidence relied on and the reasons for the discipline. Mayes found Valverde guilty of two charges—violent conduct and refusing a direct order—and imposed 180 days in a special housing unit and 180 days without package, commissary, or telephone privileges.

The court held that due process did not require Mayes to allow irrelevant evidence or every requested witness. It also held that the written decision was not constitutionally inadequate merely because Valverde considered it too short. The decision was supported by at least some evidence, including Folks’s misbehavior report, witness testimony, photographs, and other documentary evidence. The court stated that it was not required to reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The court held that Valverde’s claims were barred because he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, separately held that the claims against Nurse Frangella and Hearing Officer Mayes failed as a matter of law, directed the Clerk to close the motion and the case, and did not separately decide the merits of the remaining claims.