Carrasco v. Griffin

Background

Jose Carrasco, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued Thomas Griffin, identified in the opinion as the former superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility. Carrasco alleged that Griffin violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from an October 6, 2015 stabbing by another inmate in the prison yard.

Carrasco initially sued several employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. After earlier rulings, his only remaining claim was the Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Griffin. Griffin filed an unopposed motion for summary judgment. The court had extended Carrasco’s deadline to respond twice and warned that the motion would be treated as unopposed if he did not respond. Carrasco missed the final deadline.

Grievance Process

Carrasco filed two grievances related to the stabbing. One complained that the weapon was made from material near telephones in the yard and that corrections officers were not at their posts. The other challenged alleged placement of contraband on him and a disciplinary ticket. The grievances were consolidated.

The facility’s Inmate Grievance Review Committee recommended removing the material surrounding the yard telephones. Carrasco appealed that recommendation to the facility superintendent, who denied the appeal on May 6, 2016. The opinion states that two copies of the superintendent’s decision were sent to Carrasco the next day.

Carrasco later asked about the status of his grievances. On October 28, 2016, a grievance-program supervisor told him that the superintendent’s decision had been forwarded to him and that any future appeal to the Central Office Review Committee would be untimely. Carrasco submitted an appeal on November 4, 2016, nearly six months after the superintendent’s decision. The supervisor did not forward it because it was untimely.

Court’s Reasoning

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. For this grievance system, Carrasco had to file a complaint within 21 days of the incident, appeal the committee’s response to the superintendent within seven days, and appeal the superintendent’s response to the Central Office Review Committee within seven days.

The court held that Carrasco failed to properly and timely exhaust those remedies. He did not appeal to the Central Office Review Committee within seven days, did not request additional time within 45 days, and did not claim that the grievance decisions had not been implemented. The court rejected the argument that the process was unavailable. Although Carrasco said he had not received the superintendent’s decision, the record showed that two copies had been sent to him. The court also stated that, even without receiving the decision, Carrasco was required to appeal within a reasonable time after he should have learned that he had not received a response.

The court concluded that waiting nearly six months to appeal was not timely exhaustion. It further concluded that no evidence showed either that Carrasco had exhausted his remedies or that the grievance process was unavailable to him. Because the exhaustion issue resolved the case, the court did not decide whether a reasonable jury could find that Griffin violated Carrasco’s constitutional rights.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted Griffin’s motion for summary judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice because the time for appealing through the grievance process had expired. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The clerk was directed to close the case.