Cossette v. Downstate Correctional Facility

Background

Marcus Cossette, who was incarcerated in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, alleged that two inmates beat him in his cell at Downstate Correctional Facility on August 28, 2019. He alleged that Correction Officer Lamont Williams allowed the inmates to enter the cell, that Sergeant Arnaldo Pavez and Correction Officer Madison Edwards did not help him obtain protective custody afterward, and that he received inadequate medical care. He also alleged claims involving Deputy Superintendent Edward Burnett and Dr. Mario Malvarosa.

Cossette filed several amended complaints. His claims included federal constitutional claims and state-law claims. The defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss. Because Cossette’s complaints stated that he had exhausted the prison grievance process and the defendants submitted evidence outside the pleadings, the court converted the motion to a motion for summary judgment on the exhaustion issue. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no material fact requires a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Exhaustion ruling

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires incarcerated people to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing federal claims about prison conditions. In New York, the relevant process generally requires an incarcerated person to file a grievance with the facility grievance committee, appeal an adverse decision to the superintendent, and then appeal to the Central Office Review Committee, or CORC.

The court held that Cossette did not exhaust these procedures before filing suit. The grievance document he provided did not complain about the defendants’ conduct or his medical care; instead, it concerned the failure to help him file charges against the inmates who assaulted him. The court also found that the records from Downstate and Attica showed no grievance concerning the claims in this case, and that CORC had no record of an appeal concerning the assault, alleged cover-up, or inadequate medical care.

The court explained that even if Cossette had filed an initial grievance that received no response, he still had to pursue an available appeal. His letters to prison officials and other agencies did not replace the formal grievance process. The court also rejected his arguments that the process was unavailable because it was a dead end, too unclear to use, or blocked by threats or intimidation. It found that the statements attributed to Williams and Edwards were not connected to the grievance process and that Cossette had time to file and appeal grievances after his transfer to Attica.

Other claims and disposition

The court stated that several claims would also fail even if Cossette had fully exhausted them. It found that the complaint did not adequately allege personal involvement by Burnett or Malvarosa. It also found insufficient allegations that Pavez or Edwards caused a later attack by denying protective custody, that Pavez violated a federal right by not helping Cossette press criminal charges, or that violations of prison policies created a federal constitutional claim. The court further stated that verbal harassment or threats alone did not establish a federal claim.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Cossette may have been asserting. It declined to allow another amendment because Cossette had already amended four times, had received notice of the alleged deficiencies, and had not requested another amendment or identified facts that would cure them.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Cossette’s federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his state claims without prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.