Arnold v. Goetz
Decision Date | 04 February 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 01 Civ. 8993(WK).,01 Civ. 8993(WK). |
Citation | 245 F.Supp.2d 527 |
Parties | David ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. CO. A. GOETZ, Sgt. A. Montegari, and CO. W. Kelly, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
David Arnold, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Drawer B, Stormville, NY, for Plaintiff, pro se.
Rebecca Ann Durden, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff David Arnold ("Arnold" or the "plaintiff) is an inmate at the Green Haven Correctional Facility. Arnold, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in order to recover damages for an alleged assault he suffered at the hands of Correctional Officer A. Goetz, Correctional Officer W. Kelly, and Sergeant A. Montegari (collectively the "defendants"). The defendants argue that Arnold failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and thereby failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, Title VIII, § 803(d), 110 Stat. 1321-71 (1996) (codified amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a))("PLRA"). As such, they now move to dismiss Arnold's action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Arnold is an inmate at the Green Haven Correctional Facility. (Am. Compl. at 2.) On June 22, 2001, Correctional Officer A. Goetz ("Goetz") ordered Arnold "to lock in." (Am. Compl. at 3.) Thereafter, Goetz allegedly entered Arnold's cell, grabbed him by the neck, and told Arnold that he would have "to learn to respect him." (Am. Compl. at 4.) When Goetz then purportedly pushed Arnold's face towards Goetz's crotch and told the plaintiff to "suck his penis," Arnold refused and began to struggle with him. Id. Goetz allegedly responded by beating the plaintiff. Id. He then led Arnold out of his cell and purportedly threw him to the floor in such a manner that the plaintiff struck his head. Id.
At this stage, another correctional officer escorted Arnold down some stairs. Id. While the plaintiff stood facing a wall in handcuffs, Correctional Officer W. Kelly ("Kelly") and Sergeant A. Montegari ("Montegari") came by to question Arnold regarding his assault against a staff member. (Am. Compl. at 5.) Before the plaintiff had a chance to answer their questions, Montegari and Kelly allegedly began to beat him. Id.
In light of the purported injuries he sustained from these assaults, the plaintiff brought this action against Goetz, Kelly, and Montegari pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After filing his initial Complaint in 2001, he later filed an Amended Complaint in January 2002. In his Amended Complaint, the plaintiff indicated that a grievance procedure existed at the Green Haven Correctional Facility. (See Am Compl. at 2.) He also indicated that he had never presented the facts related to the assaults to correctional officials by way of that procedure. See id. In responding to a question on the form complaint which inquired about why the plaintiff failed to follow the grievance procedure, he simply stated: "Because I did not know what to do." (Am. Compl. at 3.)
Shortly after the plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, the defendants moved to dismiss this action. They contend that the action must be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in satisfaction of the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. When the plaintiff failed to respond to that motion over the ensuing months, we issued an order affording him one more opportunity to submit such a response. See Arnold v. Goetz (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2002) No. 01 Civ. 8993(WK), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24224, at *1-*2. We directed Arnold to submit an opposition brief, if he so chose, by January 17, 2003. Id. at *2. As part of that directive, we also allowed Arnold to explain "what he meant when he indicated in his Amended Complaint that he `did not know what to do' with respect to submitting a grievance" even though he apparently knew that a grievance program existed at Green Haven. Id. To date, Arnold has not submitted an opposition brief and has offered no explanation regarding his statements in the Amended Complaint.
The defendants move this Court to dismiss the plaintiffs action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In other words, they contend that we lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this lawsuit and that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Where, as here, the defendants have moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) as well as on other grounds, we must initially consider their Rule 12(b)(1) challenge since all other objections and defenses would become moot and need not be addressed if we first dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. United States ex rel. Kreindler & Kreindler v. United Techs. Corp. (2d Cir.) 985 F.2d 1148, 1155-1156, cert, denied (1993) 508 U.S. 973, 113 S.Ct. 2962, 125 L.Ed.2d 663; Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Alabama Ins. Guar. Ass'n (2d Cir.1990) 896 F.2d 674, 678.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for the dismissal of a complaint when the court "lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter." Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). However, the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional in nature. Graham v. Perez (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 121 F.Supp.2d 317, 322. See also Handberry v. Thompson (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2003) No. 96 Civ. 616(CBM), 2003 W 194205, at *3 (); Mendoza v. Goord (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2002) No. 00 Civ. 0146(GEL), 2002 W 31654855, at *2 n. 3 ( ); Rodriguez v. Ghoslaw (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002) No. 98 Civ. 4658(GEL), 2002 W 1424586, at *2 (); Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2000) No. 98 Civ. 9009(WHP), 2000 W 347155, at *8 (); Santiago v. Meinsen (S.D.N.Y.2000) 89 F.Supp.2d 435, 441 (); Howard v. Headly (E.D.N.Y.1999) 72 F.Supp.2d 118, 122-123 (); Hayes v. N.Y.S. D.O.C. Officers (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 1998) No. 97 Civ. 7383(MBM), 1998 W 901730, at *7 n. 4 (internal citations omitted) () .
Rather, "[w]hen a defendant raises a prisoner's failure to comply with the PLRA's exhaustion requirement, the failure is properly assessed as an affirmative defense." Gonzalez v. Officer in Charge of Barber Shop on Duty on May 13, 1999 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2000) No. 99 Civ. 3455(DLC), 2000 W 274184, at *3. See also Acosta v. Artuz (2d Cir.2000) 221 F.3d 117,121 ( ); Jenkins v. Haubert (2d Cir.1999) 179 F.3d 19, 28-29 (); Reyes v. Punzal (W.D.N.Y.2002) 206 F.Supp.2d 431, 433 (); John v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr. (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 183 F.Supp.2d 619, 624 (); Hallett v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs. (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 109 F.Supp.2d 190, 196 (); Cuoco, 2000 W 347155, at *8 (); Howard v. Goord (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 1999) No. 98-CV-7471 (FB), 1999 W 1288679, at *2 (). For that reason, the defense "may be waived by a defendant, or forfeited by failure to raise the defense." Rodriguez, 2002 W 1424586, at *2. See also Perez v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr. (7th Cir.1999) 182 F.3d 532, 536 (); Graham, 121 F.Supp.2d at 322 (). Cf. Davis v. New York (2d Cir.2002) 316 F.3d 93, 101 ( ).
Although many courts agree that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, we are cognizant that this view is not universally held in our district. A split exists among our fellow courts with respect to this issue. See Handberry, 2003 W 194205, at *3; Law v. Bergamini (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2002) No. 01-CV-463 (LEK/DEP), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25434, at *8 n. 3, approved (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2003) 2003 U.S. Dist....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. City of Mount Vernon
...2007) (same); GCG Int'l, Inc. v. Eberhardt, No. 05–CV–2422, 2005 WL 2647942, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2005) (same); Arnold v. Goetz, 245 F.Supp.2d 527, 539 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (same).3. Qualified Immunity Under certain circumstances, police officers are immune under federal or New York law for t......
-
Perez v. Ponte
...under the PLRA as an affirmative defense and therefore the defense as to Defendant Ponte is deemed waived. See Arnold v. Goetz, 245 F.Supp.2d 527, 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (acknowledging that failure to exhaust administrative remedies must be asserted as an affirmative defense and "[f]or that re......
-
Hightower v. Nassau County Sheriff's Dept.
...exhaustion on the one hand and then claim the inmate did not properly exhaust these remedies on the other." Arnold v. Goetz, 245 F.Supp.2d 527, 537 (S.D.N.Y.2003). According to Hightower, despite his request, he was never given a formal form to file a grievance. As a result, he filed a grie......
-
Banks v. Cnty. of Westchester
...the PLRA is an affirmative defense, it “may be waived by a defendant, or forfeited by failure to raise the defense.” Arnold v. Goetz , 245 F.Supp.2d 527, 532 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Ruggiero v. Cty. of Orange , 467 F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir.2006) (affirming that e......