United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
MICHAEL P. SHEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
plaintiff, Lester Jordan, commenced this civil rights action
asserting a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need while he was incarcerated. He has since
discharged from custody. The named defendant, Nurse Barbara
LaFrance, moves for summary judgment on the ground that the
plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
before commencing this action. For the following reasons, the
defendant's motion is granted.
I.
Standard of Review
A
motion for summary judgment may be granted only where there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(a),
Fed. R. Civ. P.; see also Nick's Garage, Inc. v.
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 875 F.3d 107, 113-14 (2d Cir.
2017). “A genuine issue of material fact exists if
‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'”
Nick's Garage, 875 F.3d at 113-14 (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)). Which facts are material is determined by the
substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
“The same standard applies whether summary judgment is
granted on the merits or on an affirmative defense
….” Giordano v. Market Am., Inc., 599
F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 2010).
The
moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court
of the basis for its motion and identifying the admissible
evidence it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party meets this
burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Wright
v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). He cannot
“‘rely on conclusory allegations or
unsubstantiated speculation' but ‘must come forward
with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a
genuine dispute of material fact.'” Robinson v.
Concentra Health Servs., 781 F.3d 42, 34 (2d Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted). To defeat a motion for summary judgment,
the nonmoving party must present such evidence as would allow
a jury to find in his favor. Graham v. Long Island
R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000).
Although
the court is required to read a self-represented
“party's papers liberally and interpret them to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest, ”
Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir.
2015), “unsupported allegations do not create a
material issue of fact” and do not overcome a properly
supported motion for summary judgment. Weinstock v.
Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000).
II.
Facts[1]
The
plaintiff was admitted to the custody of the Department of
Correction at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution on
April 27, 2018, as a pretrial detainee. ECF No. 19-7 ¶
1. On July 18, 2018, he began serving a six-month sentence
for violation of probation. Id. ¶ 2. The
plaintiff completed his sentence and was discharged from
custody on October 23, 2018. Id. ¶ 3. He has
not been re-incarcerated. Id. ¶ 4.
Inmates
at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution are housed in
the MacDougall building or the Walker building. Id.,
¶ 5. Medical staff are assigned to both buildings and
medical services are provided in both buildings.
Id., ¶ 6. Inmates exhaust their administrative
remedies on matters relating to health care by utilizing the
Health Services Review (“HSR”), as set forth in
Department of Correction Administrative Directive 8.9.
Id., ¶ 7. The review is commenced when an
inmate files a request on form CN 9602. Id., ¶
8.
When an
inmate at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution files an
HSR on form CN 9602, a designated HSR Coordinator at that
facility reviews the request and logs it into the HSR
electronic records. The HSR Coordinator then either responds
to the request or forwards the request to the appropriate
person for a response. Id., ¶ 9. The HSR
document is filed in the HSR archive located in the medical
unit. Id., ¶ 10. The routine and regular
practice of the HSR Coordinators is to enter HSR requests
into the electronic log and file the hard copy in the HSR
archive. Id., ¶ 11. The electronic HSR log
lists all HSR requests filed in the MacDougall and Walker
buildings. Id., ¶ 12.
Nurses
Walker and Ostheimer are HSR Coordinators. Id.
¶¶ 13-14. They both have access to the electronic
HSR log and the historical archive of HSR requests filed by
inmates at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution.
Id., ¶ 15. Nurse Ostheimer conducted a manual
search at the Walker building for any HSR request filed by
the plaintiff between April 2018 and October 2018.
Id., ¶ 16. Nurse Walker searched the electronic
log for any HSR request filed by the plaintiff between April
2018 and October 2018. Id., ¶ 17. Neither
located evidence that the plaintiff filed an HSR request
while he was confined at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution. Id., ¶ 18.
III.
Discussion
The
defendant moves for summary judgment the ground that the
plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
before commencing this action.
The
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit
relating to prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
(“No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or
other correctional facility until such administrative
remedies as are available are exhausted.”). This
exhaustion requirement applies to all claims regarding
...