Haywood v. Annucci

Background

Tyrone Haywood, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Anthony J. Annucci, Michael Blot, Jr., Richard Flanagan, Eric Ferguson, and Robert A. Wahlquist. He alleged that events during a facility-wide lockdown and search at Green Haven Correctional Facility on August 1, 2018, violated his constitutional rights. Haywood alleged that he was pushed down stairs, punched, pushed against a wall, and sexually assaulted during a strip frisk. He also raised claims concerning the search of his cell, destruction of property, and confinement in a special housing unit.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. They argued that Haywood had failed to exhaust required prison grievance procedures for some claims, that several defendants were not personally involved, and that the evidence did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation for the alleged assaults.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. New York’s prison grievance process generally requires an incarcerated person to pursue the matter through the facility process, the superintendent, and the Central Office Review Committee. The court also explained that New York has a more relaxed process for allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment: a complaint may be treated as exhausted when the alleged victim reports it through one of the specified channels, including a grievance or report to facility staff.

Haywood filed one grievance stating that he had been assaulted in the visiting-room strip-search area. The court held that the sexual-assault allegation and the alleged punches and wall push were intertwined with the alleged sexual assault, so the more relaxed exhaustion standard applied to them. The court therefore found those claims sufficiently exhausted.

The court reached a different conclusion about the alleged shove down the stairs. It determined that this event was not intertwined with the sexual assault because the grievance placed the assault in the visiting room and did not suggest that the stair shove furthered the sexual misconduct. Haywood had not filed a separate grievance about that use of force. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion as to that claim and dismissed it for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The court also held that the claims concerning the cell search, destruction of property, and confinement in the special housing unit were not intertwined with the sexual assault. Haywood did not appeal his grievance concerning those issues to the Central Office Review Committee. The court rejected his argument that the grievance process was unavailable because the superintendent’s decision was allegedly sent to the wrong cell. It concluded that his prior use of the grievance system and the available appeal procedures showed that the process remained available. The defendants’ motion was therefore granted as to those claims.

Eighth Amendment claims

The court considered whether the alleged sexual assault and the intertwined physical acts violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. For this type of claim, the court explained that the plaintiff must show both a sufficiently serious use of force and that the official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.

As to the alleged sexual touching by Flanagan, the court noted that the search occurred during a facility-wide lockdown after two corrections officers had been assaulted and that Haywood had refused to use the Cell Sense machine. The court found that Haywood did not provide evidence creating a genuine dispute about whether Flanagan acted for sexual gratification or to humiliate him. The court also concluded that the alleged touching was brief and, in the context of the strip search, did not meet the objective seriousness required for an Eighth Amendment violation. The court granted the defendants’ motion on Haywood’s sexual-assault claim against Flanagan.

The court likewise granted the motion on the claims that Haywood was punched and pushed against a wall. It relied on the lack of medical evidence documenting injuries to his face or chest, the absence of documented follow-up treatment, and Haywood’s testimony that the force was used to make him comply. The court concluded that any force used was, at most, minimal and did not satisfy the objective requirement for an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. The court dismissed those Eighth Amendment claims against Flanagan.

Claims against the other defendants

The court granted the motion as to Annucci because Haywood’s allegations that Annucci knew about or allowed a culture of assaults were conclusory and unsupported by objective evidence. The court explained that a supervisor may be held liable under § 1983 only through that official’s own conduct connected to the alleged constitutional violation.

The court also granted the motion as to Blot, Wahlquist, and Ferguson. Because the court found no constitutional violation in the strip search, it concluded that these defendants could not be liable for personal involvement in that violation or for failing to intervene or protect Haywood. To the extent claims against Blot or Ferguson concerned the stair shove, the court also applied the failure-to-exhaust ruling.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, entered judgment for the defendants, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and ordered that a copy of the opinion and order be mailed to Haywood.