Johnson v. Department of Corrections

Background

Chad S. Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought this civil-rights action under Section 1983 against Sergeant S. Petrie, Correction Officer Duran Allen, and Correction Officer Mason Hamilton. Johnson alleged that, while incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility, Hamilton planted contraband in his cell at Petrie’s direction, Petrie forced him to sell K2 and marijuana using a cellphone and digital payments, and Allen also tried to recruit him to sell drugs. Johnson said that after he stopped sending Petrie payments and refused to continue selling drugs, Petrie sent him to segregated housing and caused disciplinary charges to be filed.

The court previously construed the amended complaint as asserting an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Petrie and Allen, a Section 1983 conspiracy claim against all three defendants, and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Petrie. Johnson did not oppose the defendants’ motion for summary judgment despite receiving multiple extensions. Because he was representing himself, the court independently reviewed the record rather than automatically treating every fact in the defendants’ statement as undisputed.

Administrative-exhaustion requirement

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires incarcerated people to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. New York’s grievance process generally requires a complaint to the facility grievance committee, an appeal to the facility superintendent, and a further appeal to the Central Office Review Committee.

Johnson testified that he did not file grievances about the Downstate events while he was there. A prison grievance-program official also reported that Johnson had appealed only one grievance to the Central Office Review Committee, concerning legal mail and filed in 2018. Johnson testified that he contacted the Office of Special Investigations, wrote letters to the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Commissioner’s office, and tried to file or filed a grievance at Great Meadow after his transfer. The court explained that those contacts, by themselves, did not satisfy the required grievance process.

Failure-to-protect and conspiracy claims

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the failure-to-protect and conspiracy claims because Johnson did not complete the grievance process for the alleged Downstate misconduct. The court rejected Johnson’s argument that generalized fear of retaliation made the process unavailable. Although Johnson testified that Petrie and Allen implied they could harm him if he did not participate in the drug schemes, the record did not show that they specifically threatened him with retaliation for filing a grievance. The court also noted that Johnson eventually stopped selling drugs for Petrie and refused Allen’s demands.

The court did not decide whether the failure-to-protect claim against Allen independently failed on its legal merits because it resolved that claim based on exhaustion. The court therefore dismissed the failure-to-protect and conspiracy claims. The conclusion states that all other claims were dismissed, without specifying an additional disposition beyond the claims discussed in the opinion.

Retaliation claim and Great Meadow grievance

The court reached a different result for the First Amendment retaliation claim against Petrie. Johnson was transferred to Great Meadow five days after the alleged retaliation, before the twenty-one-day period for filing a grievance had expired. Johnson testified under oath that he tried to file, or filed, a grievance there about the Downstate events but was told that Great Meadow could not accept a grievance about an incident at another facility.

The applicable directive stated that a grievance could be filed at the facility where the incarcerated person was housed, even if it concerned another facility. Viewing the evidence in Johnson’s favor, the court found a genuine dispute about whether Great Meadow officials prevented him from filing the grievance. The court also concluded that the grievance rules provided no workable way to appeal a grievance that officials had refused to file.

Because the court could not resolve that factual dispute on summary judgment, it denied summary judgment as to the retaliation claim. It ordered an exhaustion hearing limited to that claim, where it will assess witness credibility and the strength of the evidence. The retaliation claim against Petrie will proceed, while Allen and Hamilton were terminated as defendants.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The failure-to-protect and conspiracy claims were dismissed. Johnson’s Section 1983 retaliation claim against Petrie remains for an exhaustion hearing. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.