Saeli v. Chautauqua Cnty.

36 F.4th 445

Samuel James SAELI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY, NY, Correction Officer William Genther, Correction Officer Jason Steenburn, Defendants-Appellees.^*

Docket No. 20-2340-pr

August Term, 2021

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: December 7, 2021

Decided: June 8, 2022

Andrew Rhys Davies, Allen & Overy LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael McClaren (Kevin G. Cope, Shannon B. O'Neill, on the brief), Webster Szanyi LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Lynch, Carney, and Sullivan, Circuit Judges.

Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Samuel James Saeli appeals from a June 30, 2020 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Charles J. Siragusa, J. ) granting summary judgment on all claims to Defendants-Appellees Chautauqua County ("the County") and Correction Officers William Genther and Jason Steenburn ("the Officers") in this civil rights suit concerning the County's policy of handcuffing inmates in an allegedly painful manner and the Officers’ use of force in extracting Saeli from his cell at the Chautauqua County Jail ("the Jail"). The district court granted summary judgment because it concluded that Saeli, who was proceeding pro se at the time, failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he complied with the Jail's grievance policy and exhausted all available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, Title VIII, § 803(d), 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

Saeli, now represented by counsel, argues that he did not fail to exhaust all available administrative remedies because (1) he did, in fact, timely submit an informal grievance form describing his encounter with the Officers, but the Jail failed to act on it, making the grievance process effectively unavailable to him; and (2) the Jail's grievance policy excludes matters outside the jail captain's control and thus was inapplicable to his claim against the County, which challenged a handcuffing policy set by the Chautauqua County Sheriff, not the Jail.

We conclude that the district court was correct to grant summary judgment to the Officers but that it erred in granting summary judgment to the County. To the extent that Saeli contended that he timely submitted an informal grievance form on the date recorded on the form, no reasonable factfinder could accept that contention, because the form on its face describes events that occurred after that date. Saeli's more general contention that he submitted the form at some unspecified time in some unspecified manner, even if believed, would not suffice to create a genuine dispute as to whether he made a timely attempt at compliance with the grievance procedures. Contrary to the district court's conclusion, however, the Jail's grievance policy by its plain terms did not apply to Saeli's claim arising from the County's handcuffing policy, and thus there were no administrative remedies for Saeli to exhaust with respect to that claim.

We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court as to the Officers, VACATE the judgment as to the County, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background¹

Saeli was detained at the Chautauqua County Jail between August 2016 and September 2018 pending trial on charges related to the sexually-motivated kidnapping of a teenage boy, charges on which he was ultimately convicted. During that detention, he was housed in the Jail's hospital unit due to health concerns.

The Jail's inmate handbook lays out a grievance policy for resolving inmate complaints. The grievance policy does not specifically identify which sorts of disputes it covers, but it categorically excludes certain issues: "Grievances regarding dispositions or sanctions from disciplinary hearings, administrative segregation housing decisions, issues that are outside the authority of the jail captain to control , or complaints pertaining to an inmate other than the inmate filing the grievance are not grievable issues." J. App'x at 385 (emphasis added). The grievance policy instructs aggrieved inmates to follow a multi-step process:

• Attempt to resolve your complaint or problem with your housing officer.

• If the housing officer cannot resolve your complaint, the housing officers will contact the shift supervisor who will decide if your complaint warrants filing a grievance or can be otherwise resolved.

• If the complaint cannot be resolved, the shift supervisor will contact the grievance coordinator and you will be issued a grievance [form].

• The grievance must be filed with the grievance coordinator within 5 days of the date of the act or occurrence that caused the complaint.

• If the grievance is too vague or does not provide enough information or evidence, it will be returned to you. You must resubmit it within two days with the appropriate correction or it will be denied.

Id. at 386.

The parties agree that in practice, the Jail requires inmates to initiate the first two steps, involving the housing officer and shift supervisor, by filling out and submitting an "informal grievance" form. Id. at 673. According to Saeli, inmates must ask a correction officer for an informal grievance form, at which point "that correction officer fills in the name of the grievant, the inmate's location and the date and time the [informal] grievance was given to the inmate." Id at 624. In other words, the inmate must request, receive, complete, and submit an informal grievance form; and if the housing officer and shift supervisor are unable to resolve the inmate's complaint on the basis of that informal grievance form, the inmate will be "issued" a formal grievance form, which he must complete and submit to the grievance coordinator no later than five days after the incident complained of. The policy also sets out a process, not at issue here, for appealing an adverse decision regarding a formal grievance by the grievance coordinator.

On September 12, 2016, Saeli was handcuffed before being escorted from the Jail to a court appearance. Saeli found the manner in which he was handcuffed painful, and he alleges that he attempted to submit a timely informal grievance form pursuant to the grievance policy. Saeli further alleges that when he attempted to submit that first informal grievance form, an unnamed officer told him that the handcuffing policy followed by correction officers at the Jail was set by the County, that it was outside the Jail's control, and that it therefore was not grievable.

On September 24, 2016, Saeli was taking a shower in his cell when water began to pool in the shower stall and overflow onto the floor outside. Correction Officer Walsh, not a party to this appeal, noticed the water and called out to ask if Saeli was okay. When Saeli did not respond, Walsh called for backup. Walsh ordered Saeli out of the shower, and Saeli alleges that when he exited the shower, nine officers had arrived on the scene and begun shouting orders at him. Genther then entered the cell and threw Saeli to the ground, at which point Steenburn entered the cell and joined Genther in kneeling on Saeli to hold him down while handcuffing him with his hands behind his back and the backs of his hands facing each other, palms facing outwards. Saeli alleges that he sustained multiple injuries from this incident, including cuts and bruises on his neck, back, wrists, and right hand, as well as neuropathy in his right hand.

Shortly after the September 24 incident, Saeli again made some attempt to avail himself of the Jail's grievance process. He began by filling out an informal grievance form, dated "09/25/16 1430," describing the shower incident. J. App'x at 735. Saeli alleges that he attempted to hand that form to Lieutenant Fuller, an officer not party to this appeal, but that Fuller responded, "don't hand that in" and gave the form back to him. Id. at 72; see also id. at 677. Saeli later testified that he took that statement and Fuller's "manner" of making it as an indication that Fuller might be "upset" and retaliate against him for filing a grievance. Id. at 753-54. While Fuller made no explicit threats, Saeli interpreted his statement as containing an implicit "or else." Id. at 755. Saeli therefore took the form back and instead wrote a letter to the New York State Commission of Correction describing the incident. After receiving Saeli's letter, the Commission referred his complaint to the Chautauqua County Sheriff's Department, which opened an investigation into the shower incident.

At a disciplinary hearing on September 26, 2016, Saeli was found guilty of disobeying orders in connection with the shower incident and received a verbal reprimand. After the disciplinary proceedings, Saeli apparently revisited his informal grievance form and made a notation in the margin of that form explaining that he was disciplined for his conduct in connection with the shower incident.

The parties dispute what Saeli did next with the informal grievance form. Saeli asserts, based on sworn factual allegations in his memorandum of law in opposition to summary judgment² and the fact that the County produced a copy of the form during discovery, that he submitted the informal grievance form to an unspecified officer in an unspecified manner on an unspecified date. Defendants-Appellees deny that Saeli ever submitted the informal grievance form to any correction officer and instead assert that he sent it to the Commission of Correction, which later forwarded a copy to the Sheriff's Department. Defendants’-Appellees’ support for that theory is the testimony of a correction officer that a "diligent search" failed to locate a copy of Saeli's grievance form in the Jail's files, id. at 346, and the fact that the copy of the form in the record bears a case number that matches a number that...