Richardson v. City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-05080
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Richardson v. City of New York: Judge Engelmayer dismissed Richardson’s civil-rights claims with prejudice for failing to exhaust prison grievance procedures and denied leave to amend.
Dewayne Richardson’s claims against the City of New York, New York City Health and Hospitals, and the six individual defendants were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Richardson v. City of New York, Dewayne Richardson alleged that the City, New York City Health and Hospitals, and six individual defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was held at two Rikers Island facilities. He alleged inadequate conditions and medical treatment, and that an officer used excessive force by spraying him with a chemical agent.
The court dismissed all of Richardson’s claims with prejudice. It held that he filed the case while in custody but did not complete the required prison grievance process, even though he had ample opportunity to do so. The court also declined to let him amend the complaint because the exhaustion problem could not be cured after his release.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the claims but changed the recommendation from dismissal without prejudice to dismissal with prejudice. He granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Richardson v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-05080
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 6, 2023
Background
Dewayne Richardson filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by persons acting under state law. He initially litigated without a lawyer and sought damages and injunctive relief against the City of New York, New York City Health and Hospitals, and six individual defendants: Deputy Carter, Captain Law, Officer Gozman, Officer Sanchez, Captain Perry, and Deputy of Security Harvey.
Richardson alleged that, while held as a pretrial detainee at the Vernon C. Bain Center and George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island, he experienced inadequate conditions and medical treatment. He also alleged that Officer Sanchez used excessive force by spraying him with a chemical agent after an altercation.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. By then, Richardson was represented by counsel. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended dismissing the claims without prejudice. Defendants objected only to the recommendation that dismissal be without prejudice.
Court’s analysis
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s unobjected-to conclusions after reviewing them for clear error. Those conclusions included that Richardson failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act; that, even if he had exhausted those remedies, his claims against the individual defendants lacked allegations of their personal involvement; that he had not adequately alleged a policy, custom, or practice supporting municipal liability against New York City Health and Hospitals; and that Officer Sanchez did not use excessive force when he sprayed Richardson after Richardson was “flipping tables” in the day room.
The disputed issue was whether the dismissal should be without prejudice or with prejudice. The court explained that Richardson filed the action while he was confined and therefore was required to complete the available prison grievance process before suing. Although he was later released and could no longer use that process, the court held that his later release did not excuse his failure to exhaust because he had ample opportunity to do so while confined.
The court relied on the record summarized in the report and recommendation. Richardson made 311 calls, filed three grievances, and filed an appeal; prison personnel responded to his complaints and provided explanations. He filed this lawsuit instead of completing the administrative process, and he conceded that he had not exhausted his remedies.
Disposition
The court dismissed all of Richardson’s claims with prejudice. It also declined to grant leave to amend, concluding that amendment would be futile because the failure to exhaust could not be cured. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, and closed the case.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the opinion and order on February 6, 2023.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.