Cunningham v. Agro

Background

Emir Cunningham brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Rose Agro, identified as the former warden of the Anna M. Kross Center, a New York City Department of Correction facility. Cunningham’s claims arose from his incarceration at that facility from about October 5 through October 17, 2013. He alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs and to conditions involving housing, food, and showers, as well as failure to intervene or protect and civil conspiracy to violate his civil rights. Cunningham later abandoned his excessive-force claims against Agro.

Cunningham’s then-fiancée submitted a complaint through New York City’s 311 system on October 8, 2013, and the complaint was forwarded to Agro’s office. A response sent on Agro’s behalf directed apparent deputies to investigate and report their findings. Cunningham also alleged that he submitted a grievance and did not obtain a resolution through the Department of Correction’s grievance process.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and establishes that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The nonmoving party must present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to rule in its favor and cannot rely only on speculation or conclusory statements.

For a conditions-of-confinement claim based on deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show both an objectively serious deprivation and that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly despite knowing, or reasonably being expected to know, that the condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety.

Discussion

Grievance-related allegations. The court found it objectively reasonable for Agro to believe that she had no constitutional obligation to resolve Cunningham’s complaints after he was transferred from the facility, particularly because only about six days apparently passed between Agro’s awareness of the complaints and Cunningham’s transfer. The court also held that prisoners have no protected constitutional right to the processing of prison grievances. Thus, allegations that Agro failed to respond properly or failed to follow Department of Correction grievance procedures could not independently support a § 1983 claim.

The parties disputed whether Cunningham had exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act or whether exhaustion was excused. The court found the record unclear, resolved that issue in Cunningham’s favor, and did not decide whether he had properly used and completed the grievance process. The court then considered the underlying deliberate-indifference allegations.

Medical care. Cunningham said he did not receive mental-health medication and was not seen by medical professionals during his time at the facility. Agro relied on medical records showing that Cunningham interacted with multiple medical personnel, including mental-health counselors, physicians, and an audiologist who provided a hearing aid. The court held that Cunningham’s failure to remember those appointments and his generalized suggestion that the records might have been falsified were not enough to create a genuine factual dispute.

The court further held that, even assuming Cunningham did not receive some medical care during the relevant period, the alleged delay was not sufficiently serious. The record showed that he received psychiatric care and consultations and received a hearing aid within a few days. The court also found no evidence that medical personnel recklessly failed to act with reasonable care; after Cunningham reported his symptoms, he received prescriptions and a hearing aid.

Housing, food, and showers. The court held that Cunningham did not show that his housing, food, or shower-related conditions were sufficiently serious or that Agro knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. The record indicated that Cunningham was offered food about three times a day. His allegations about altercations in his housing and crowding in the facility’s receiving room did not establish an excessive safety risk. Although the parties disputed whether Agro knew about Cunningham’s shower-access complaints, the court found that Cunningham still had not shown the required knowledge and disregard of an excessive risk.

Conspiracy and qualified immunity. Because Cunningham did not establish an underlying constitutional violation, the court did not reach the civil-conspiracy or qualified-immunity arguments. The opinion also states that, without an unconstitutional injury, the § 1983 conspiracy claim failed.

Disposition

The court granted Agro’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 115 and close the case.