Lucente v. Cnty. of Suffolk

• Decision Date: 17 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-347,August Term 2019,19-347
• Parties: Tara LUCENTE, Janet Viola, Jamie A. Culoso, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Sharon Watts, Michele Atkinson, Catherine Andes, Plaintiffs, v. The COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, Officer Joseph Foti, Each Being Sued Individually and in Their Official Capacity, Officer John Santacroce, Each Being Sued Individually and in Their Official Capacity, aka Officer Santa Cruz, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

980 F.3d 284

Tara LUCENTE, Janet Viola, Jamie A. Culoso, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Sharon Watts, Michele Atkinson, Catherine Andes, Plaintiffs,

v.The COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, Officer Joseph Foti, Each Being Sued Individually and in Their Official Capacity, Officer John Santacroce, Each Being Sued Individually and in Their Official Capacity, aka Officer Santa Cruz,¹ Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-347

August Term 2019

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: January 6, 2020

Decided: November 17, 2020

Luis C. Hansen (Darnley D. Stewart, on the brief), Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY; Laura A. Solinger, Law Offices of Laura A. Solinger, Esq., Southold, NY (on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Brian C. Mitchell (Arlene S. Zwilling, on the brief), Assistant County Attorneys, for Dennis M. Cohen, Suffolk County Attorney, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants-Appellees County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, and Officer John Santacroce.

William P. Nolan, Esq. Garden City, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Officer Joseph Foti.

Before: Kearse, Carney, and Bianco, Circuit Judges.

Joseph F. Bianco, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Tara Lucente, Jamie A. Culoso, and Janet Viola (collectively, "plaintiffs") appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Donnelly, J .), dismissing their claims against defendants County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (together, "Suffolk County"), as well as Sergeant Joseph Foti and Corrections Officer John Santacroce (collectively, "defendants"), in connection with Foti's alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault of female inmates at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility in Riverhead, New York (the "Riverhead Facility"), in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that: (1) there was insufficient evidence in the record of a municipal policy or custom to trigger liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) ; (2) the claims brought by Lucente and Culoso were barred by the statute of limitations under § 1983 ; and (3) Viola failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") with respect to her claims.

On appeal, plaintiffs contend that, with respect to the municipal liability claim, the district court overlooked evidence in the record that precluded summary judgment on whether Suffolk County had both actual and constructive knowledge of Foti's persistent and widespread sexual misconduct involving female inmates, but failed to adequately remedy it. Lucente and Culoso further argue that their claims were timely under the continuing violation doctrine. Finally, Viola submits that the PLRA exhaustion requirement should have been excused on the theory that a campaign of threats and retaliation against female inmates at the Riverhead Facility, as well as Foti's sexual intimidation of her, made the administrative process unavailable to her.

For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment as to Viola's claims, but VACATE as to the dismissal of Lucente and Culoso's claims against Suffolk County and individual defendants, and REMAND the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Lucente, Culoso, and Viola, as well as three other former plaintiffs (Sharon Watts, Michele Atkinson, and Catherine Andes) who settled their claims with defendants, were all pre-trial inmates at the Riverhead Facility from May 2009 to April 2011. These women alleged that they were subjected to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexually degrading treatment by Foti during their time at the Riverhead Facility, and that Suffolk County and Santacroce were aware of Foti's misconduct but failed to halt it.

At the conclusion of discovery, in response to defendants’ summary judgment motion, plaintiffs presented various categories of evidence to the district court to support their claims, including the Internal Affairs Section of the County Sheriff's Office ("Internal Affairs") investigation reports in the 1990s regarding allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault against Foti, observations of various corrections officers regarding Foti's inappropriate conduct with female inmates, harrowing sworn accounts from plaintiffs themselves and other inmates about sexual harassment and sexual assault perpetrated by Foti, and some inmates’ subsequent attempts to report his behavior to officials at the Riverhead Facility. Although this evidence was disputed, the district court, in the context of a summary judgment motion, must view such evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. See Amore v. Novarro , 624 F.3d 522, 529 (2d Cir. 2010). With that legal principle in mind, plaintiffs’ evidence in support of their claims is summarized below.

A. The Riverhead Facility

The organizational hierarchy at the Riverhead Facility was well established during the time period at issue. Foti was a corrections officer assigned to the Riverhead Facility's Rehabilitation Unit (the "Rehab Unit"). Foti reported to Sergeant Noreen Fisher, who reported to Lieutenant Darlene McClurkin. Fisher served as the "sexual harassment officer" at the Riverhead Facility. Sealed Appendix ("Sealed App'x") at 90.² McClurkin reported to a Captain Johnson. McClurkin usually reported issues to the Warden through the chain of command. Separately, Internal Affairs received investigation reports regarding allegations made by inmates and others of sexual misconduct. In addition, Santacroce was an investigator in the Security Unit of the Riverhead Facility. In this role, Santacroce and the other security investigators were "in charge of the safety and security of the facility" which included "movements of inmates." Id. at 37. Santacroce testified that the female inmates could go to "anybody" at the Riverhead Facility with complaints of inappropriate conduct. Id. at 40.

Much of the Riverhead Facility's inmate programming ran through the Rehab Unit, where Foti was assigned. Inmates at the Riverhead Facility attended church services, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Narcotics Anonymous meetings in the chapel in the Rehab Unit. The Rehab Unit also housed the Riverhead Facility's law library and classrooms. At the time of plaintiffs’ incarceration, there were no cameras at the Riverhead Facility except in the visiting room.

B. The Early Investigations of Foti's Misconduct

Foti began working at the Riverhead Facility as a corrections officer in January 1988. In the 1990s, Foti was the subject of several Internal Affairs investigations, including allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior and other misconduct that could constitute such behavior, and the results of those investigations were documented. In 1992, an Internal Affairs investigation found that Foti engaged in misconduct when, on two occasions, he failed to enter a female inmate's movement into the logbook after he removed her from her housing unit for the alleged purpose of cleaning the cellblock. According to Foti, he was accused of "do[ing] inappropriate things" with the inmate. Id. at 87. As a result, Foti was reprimanded and cautioned that repetition of this behavior would result in more serious disciplinary action. In 1994, Internal Affairs opened another investigation into Foti regarding an allegation of fraternizing with an inmate. Internal Affairs closed this investigation in 1995, and issued Foti a letter of warning. [Redacted]³ In 1997 and 1998, Internal Affairs opened still more investigations into Foti regarding allegations of harassment by Foti in his personal life. The subsequent 1997 investigation involved an allegation by his ex-girlfriend that Foti sexually harassed her; it too was marked closed "pending further information."

Id. at 87, 238. The 1998 investigation related to allegations of harassment by Foti's ex-fiancée that he harassed her from April 1996 to August 1996, and was marked as "closed/unsubstantiated." Id. at 87, 235. These Internal Affairs investigation reports were maintained by Suffolk County in an electronic database that reflects the date that each complaint was sent to the County Sheriff and the nature of the complaint.

C. The Reputation and Supervision of Foti

Plaintiffs adduced evidence that Foti had a reputation among his fellow employees for inappropriate behavior with female inmates at the Riverhead Facility. Corrections Officer Catherine Laton observed that Foti was "overly friendly" with female inmates and he crossed "the line" in his behavior toward the women. Redacted Appendix ("Redacted App'x") at 223-24, 228. Laton called Foti "an accident waiting to happen" with regard to his inappropriate behavior with female inmates. Id. at 224. Laton observed that Foti would bring female inmates to the law library out of rotation. On one occasion, Laton observed Foti caress a female inmate's arm during a mass service in the chapel. Laton reported her concerns about Foti's conduct to her supervisor, Fisher, who was the sexual harassment officer at the Riverhead Facility, as well as to McClurkin, who was a lieutenant and the head of the Rehab Unit where Foti worked. After Laton shared her concerns about Foti to Fisher and McClurkin, both agreed to speak to him. However, Foti testified that no one ever spoke to him about his alleged inappropriate behavior.

Fisher testified at her deposition that she was aware of complaints and concerns expressed by female inmates of inappropriate comments and behavior toward them by Foti. At some point prior to September 2011, an inmate reported that she believed Foti was having "inappropriate relations" with two female inmates. Sealed App'x at 94-95. Specifically, although the inmate had not observed any misconduct, she...