Singh v. Goord
| Decision Date | 09 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05 Civ. 9680 (SCR).,05 Civ. 9680 (SCR). |
| Citation | 520 F.Supp.2d 487 |
| Parties | Navdeep SINGH, Plaintiff, v. Glenn S. GOORD, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Andrew Jay Frackman, Yosef Rothstein, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
John Michael Schwartz, State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Navdeep Singh, an incarcerated person who professes a belief in the Sikh faith, brings this action against various officials of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Article I, section 3 of the New York State Constitution, and various other constitutional provisions. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages.
This matter has been bifurcated into two phases. In the current phase, plaintiff is challenging policies and directives of DOGS, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. This phase of the litigation does not involve individual instances of wrong doing for which plaintiff is requesting damages. The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons below, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff is an inmate at Fishkill Correctional Facility ("Fishkill"), who professes a belief in the Sikh faith. Plaintiff is currently serving a five year sentence for assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon.
Plaintiff states that he was raised a devout Sikh, and remains one today. Since his arrival at Fishkill, plaintiff has made numerous requests related to the practice of his religion. While discussed in more detail below, these demands relate generally to: possession of certain religious articles; treatment of his religious articles; wearing religious garbs; grooming standards; dietary considerations; and accommodations regarding prayer.
Because of the relatively small number of Sikh inmates housed by DOGS — defendants state the number is fifteen — defendants did not have pre-existing guidelines regarding many of plaintiffs requests. DOCS therefore designated Captain Arlin Pelc, Captain of Security at Fishkill, to address many of plaintiff's requests. While a substantial number of his requests have been accommodated, plaintiff currently seeks additional accommodations.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact". Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Summary judgment may not be granted unless "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Id.
The initial burden falls on the moving party who is required to "demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The Court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). If the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to set forth "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The non-moving party "may not rely simply on conclusory allegations or speculation to avoid summary judgment, but instead must offer evidence to show that `its version of the events is not wholly fanciful.'" Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir.1998)).
Defendants argue that some of plaintiff's claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendants' motion on this basis is granted in part.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), no prisoner may bring a claim under § 1983 or any other federal law until administrative remedies are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This applies to all inmates suits about prison life, including claims about general circumstances or particular incidents. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002).
To exhaust remedies in New York State, a prisoner must: 1) file a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee ("IGRC"), consisting of fellow inmates and prison officials; 2) appeal to the Superintendent of the facility; 3) appeal to the Central Office Review Committee ("CORC"). See Foreman v. Goord, No. 02 Civ. 7089, 2004 WL 385114, *5, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3133, *16 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2004). Complete exhaustion to the highest level is required for each claim. Veloz v. New York, 339 F.Supp.2d 505, 514 (S.D.N.Y.2004). Letter complaints to prison officials that do not follow the grievance procedure do not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Scott v. Gardner, 287 F.Supp.2d 477, 488 (S.D.N.Y.2003). More generally, the Supreme Court recently held that procedurally defective grievances do not satisfy the PLRA. Woodford v. Ngo, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2382, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006).
Plaintiff appears to acknowledge that he has not formally exhausted administrative requirements with respect to the following claims: i) the right to wear a Kacchera (a religious undergarment) at all times and to possess more than three Kaccheras; ii) the right to wash and dry Kaccheras and turbans in his cell; iii) the right to be present when his religious articles and books are searched or otherwise touched under normal circumstances; iv) the right to shower three hours before dawn. However, plaintiff argues that his failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not preclude a judicial remedy because defendants' actions justify his failure to exhaust remedies.
The Second Circuit employs a three-part inquiry when a defendant contends that a prisoner has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. The court must ask: "(1) whether administrative remedies were actually available, (2) whether the defendants forfeited their right to raise the affirmative defense or by their own actions precluded the plaintiff from using administrative grievance procedures, and (3) whether special circumstances have been plausibly alleged that justify the prisoner's failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements." Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 686 (2d Cir.2004)(internal quotations omitted).1
In this case, plaintiff argues that he attempted to grieve his complaints but was told by prison officials that he was to address his concerns with Captain Arlin Pelc, captain of security at Fishkill. Plaintiff argues that this entitles him to prevail under the Hemphill line of cases. Plaintiff is incorrect.
While plaintiff argues that on July 12, 2005 he "filed a grievance entitled `Further Concerns', plaintiff has not provided copies of this grievance. In addition, it appears that this "grievance" was merely a letter sent to Defendant Michelle Stone, the Inmate Grievance Supervisor at Fishkill. See Supplemental Declaration of Yosef Rothstein, Ex. 65. It is well-established that letters to prison officials do not excuse the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Connor v. Hurley, No. 00 Civ. 8354, 2004 WL 885828, *2, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7146, *7 (S.D.N.Y. April 26, 2004). Scott, 287 F.Supp.2d at 488. Moreover, Ms. Stone's response clearly indicated to plaintiff that his letter was not being treated as a grievance.2 Similarly, with respect to an issue regarding prayer times raised by plaintiff, Ms. Stone advised plaintiff to address his concerns to Captain Pelc, but also indicated that he may file a formal grievance if he wanted to — even going so far as to provide plaintiff an Inmate Grievance Complaint Form. Supp. Rothstein Decl. Ex. 66. Nowhere in Ms. Stone's responses is there any indication that plaintiff was to be precluded or pressured against filing a grievance, and plaintiff's record of filing other grievances makes plain that he was aware of such procedures.
Similarly, plaintiff's argument that DOCS set up an "idiosyncratic" grievance system for him rings hollow. While the evidence indicates that Captain Pelc was designated to deal with particular concerns raised by plaintiff, there is no indication that plaintiff was ever advised against filing a formal grievance when he felt it was appropriate — indeed plaintiff appears to have filed many formal grievances. The fact that a prisoner is advised to resolve a complaint through channels available to him other than the formal grievance system, see 7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.3(a)(advising inmates to resolve issues through formal or informal channels prior to filing a formal grievance), does not per se indicate `either that the formal grievance procedure was not available to him, that the prisoner was prevented from filing a grievance, or that some special circumstance exists to excuse the prisoner's failure to formally grieve his complaint.
Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to exhaust remedies for the following claims: i) the right to wear a Kacchera at all times and to possess more than three Kaccheras; ii) the right to wash and dry Kaccheras and turbans in his cell; iii) the right to be present when his religious articles and books are searched or otherwise touched under normal circumstances; and iv) the right to shower three hours before dawn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keitt v. Hawk
...was at Upstate. (Pl.'s Dep. at 109). 30. The court makes the assumption that the DOCCS policy was revised based upon Singh v. Goord, 520 F. Supp. 2d 487, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The revised directive discussed in Singh states that "Inmates are permitted to wear religious head-coverings as perm......
-
Pugh v. Goord
...83-84, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). "Complete exhaustion to the highest level is required for each claim." Singh v. Goord, 520 F.Supp.2d 487, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing Veloz v. New York, 339 F.Supp.2d 505, 514 (S.D.N.Y.2004)). "Moreover, a claim must be completely exhausted pri......
-
Lloyd v. City of N.Y.
...must first show that the challenged conduct substantially burdened his sincerely held religious beliefs. See Singh v. Goord, 520 F.Supp.2d 487, 498 (S.D.N.Y.2007). “[W]hile mere inconvenience to the adherent is insufficient to establish a substantial burden, demonstrating a substantial burd......
-
Abreu v. Travers
...demonstrate that his or her sincerely held religious beliefs were substantially burdened by defendant's conduct. Singh v. Goord, 520 F. Supp. 2d 487, 498, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); see also Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d at 274-75 (To prevail on a free-exercise claim, a prisoner "must show at the......