Haywood v. Palmer

Background

Tyrone Haywood, proceeding without a lawyer, sued correction officers Tennessee S. Palmer and A. Valle under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged retaliation, conspiracy, assault, and cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The allegations arose from a January 6, 2021 incident at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

According to the complaint, Palmer questioned Haywood about a pending lawsuit and later attacked him from behind, placed a knee on his back, and pepper-sprayed him. Haywood alleged that Palmer also pepper-sprayed Anthony Rodriguez, another incarcerated person who witnessed the incident, and that Valle tackled Haywood into a brick wall. Haywood and Rodriguez were taken to outside hospitals. Haywood also alleged that Palmer wrote a report stating that Haywood and Rodriguez had been fighting, and that Haywood was later found guilty of fighting with and assaulting Rodriguez in an internal proceeding.

Haywood alleged that he filed a prison grievance about the incident but received no response. He also stated that the grievance process was “broken” and that it was the facility’s usual practice not to respond to grievances. Haywood said that, because he was confined to his cell area before his disciplinary hearing, he gave the grievance to other incarcerated people to place in the mailbox. He stated only that “this matter was appealed,” without clearly identifying whether he meant the grievance or his disciplinary proceeding.

Motion and governing rule

Palmer and Valle moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a legal claim plausible. The court also applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which generally requires incarcerated people to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal civil-rights action about prison conditions.

For the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision grievance system, the court stated that exhaustion ordinarily requires three steps: filing a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee, appealing an unfavorable decision to the facility superintendent, and appealing the superintendent’s decision to the Central Office Review Committee. The final appeal to that committee is required to complete the process.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Haywood did not plausibly allege that he completed the required appeals. His statement that “this matter was appealed” did not identify the recipient of the appeal, show that he made the required multiple appeals, or allege that he received any decision. The court also noted that the defendants had no record of a grievance or grievance appeal being filed.

The court considered whether Haywood’s failure to complete the process could be excused because the process was unavailable. It explained that a grievance process may be unavailable if it is a dead end, too confusing to use, or blocked by prison officials through misconduct, deception, or intimidation. The court concluded that Haywood had not plausibly alleged such circumstances. His allegations that he could not personally place the grievance in the mailbox and that prison officials did not respond did not excuse his failure to allege appeals to the superintendent and the Central Office Review Committee. The court also found his statements that the grievance process was broken and that nonresponse was the facility’s usual practice too vague and conclusory.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Haywood’s claims without prejudice because the defendants had shown that he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. The court granted Haywood leave to file an amended complaint by April 28, 2023. The order stated that, if he did not file an amended complaint by that date, his claims would be dismissed with prejudice. If he filed one on time, the defendants were directed to answer or seek permission to file another motion within 21 days.