Washington v. Chaboty

• Decision Date: 30 March 2015
• Docket Number: 09 Civ. 9199 (PGG)
• Parties: ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. TAMMI CHABOTY, PAUL GONYEA, and KEITH GRANGER, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. TAMMI CHABOTY, PAUL GONYEA, and KEITH GRANGER, Defendants.

09 Civ. 9199 (PGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 30, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.:

This is a Section 1983 case in which prose PlaintiffAnthony Washington alleges that Defendants - corrections officers and supervisors at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility ("Woodbourne") - violated his constitutional rights.(Am. Cmplt.(Dkt. No. 20) ¶¶ 71-74) The Amended Complaint asserts that Washington received a sentence in the Special Housing Unit at Woodbourne in retaliation for engaging in religious practices, and that he was denied access to religious services and classes while serving that sentence.(Id. at 3, ¶¶ 42, 45, 71-73)As a result of earlier rulings by this Court and the Second Circuit, the only remaining claims are for First Amendment retaliation and denial of Washington's First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's remaining claims, arguing, interalia, that Washington failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Washington was not disciplined for engaging in religious activities, and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.(Defendants' Memorandum inSupport of Summary Judgment ("Def. Br.")(Dkt. No. 55)at 1)For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND¹

I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS

In January 2006, DefendantTammi Chaboty - a Woodbourne corrections officer - asked Washington - then an inmate at Woodbourne - whether he could provide her with information about Islam.(Plaintiff's Affirmation in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment("Pltf.Aff.")(Dkt. No. 51) ¶¶ 11-12)Washington had converted to Islam in 1990, and was an observant Muslim from that time until his release from prison in 2011.(Id.¶ 5)Washington gave Chaboty "a few pamphlets" at that time, and the next day he gave her a book entitled A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam.(Id.¶¶ 13-18)No one else was in the room when Washington gave Chaboty the book.(Id.¶ 17)Over the next seven months, Washington and Chaboty had "more than a few" conversations about religion.(Id.¶¶ 19-22)In March 2006, during a conversation that lasted "at least 30 minutes," Chaboty asked Washington "why Muslims were so violent."(Id.¶¶ 19-20)Chaboty also requested, and Washington provided, information about Islamic views of euthanasia.(Id.¶ 22)

On the evening of August 6, 2006, Washington was working as a clerk at the Woodbourne Islamic Affairs Office("IAO").(Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. (Dkt. No. 61) ¶¶ 2, 4)² Atabout 9:00 p.m., Washington twice asked Defendant Chaboty, who was at her post near the IAO, if he could see her for a minute in order to give her a "present."(Id.¶¶ 3-4;Pltf. R. 56.1 Resp. (Dkt. No. 52) ¶ 4) Chaboty came to the office,³ and Washington gave her a copy of the Quran while she stood in the doorway.(Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. (Dkt. No. 61) ¶ 5;Pltf. R. 56.1 Resp. (Dkt. No. 52) ¶ 7;Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 27) Inside the book, Washington had inserted a two-page typed informational statement about the Quran, which was intended "to help Chaboty in its reading."(Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 24)Chaboty accepted the book and then returned to her post.(Pltf. R. 56.1 Resp. (Dkt. No. 52) ¶ 6)

Defendants claim that no other staff member was in the vicinity when Washington gave Chaboty the Quran, but Washington states that Chaboty was "in the clear view of two [other] corrections officers."(Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. (Dkt. No. 61) ¶ 7;Pltf. R. 56.1 Resp. (Dkt. No. 52) ¶ 7) Chaboty states that she felt "very uncomfortable" and believed "that [she] could potentially be in danger."(Declaration of Tammi Chaboty ("Chaboty Decl.")(Dkt. No. 59) ¶ 9)Washington was smiling at her in a fashion that was "eerie and unnerving."(Id.)Washington disputes Chaboty's account.(Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. (Dkt. No. 61) ¶¶ 7-8;Pltf. R. 56.1 Resp. (Dkt. No. 52) ¶¶ 7-8) At 9:30 the next morning - August 7, 2006 - DefendantKeith Granger approached Washington and ordered a corrections officer to frisk Washington, handcuff him, and escort him to the Special Housing Unit ("S.H.U.").(Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 35)At the S.H.U., Washington was strip-searched and put in a cell.(Id.)Granger allegedly asked Washington about his encounter with Chaboty, and told Washington that Granger would be writing a misbehavior report against Washington.(Id.¶¶ 36-39)

On August 7, 2006, Chaboty and Granger signed a misbehavior report charging Washington with soliciting, stalking, and "harassment," based on his "communicating messages of a personal nature to an employee."⁴(Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. (Dkt. No. 61) ¶¶ 9-10;Pltf. R. 56.1 Resp. (Dkt. No. 52) ¶¶ 9-10) Between August 11 and August 21, 2006, DefendantPaul Gonyea, then a deputy superintendent at Woodbourne, presided over a Tier III disciplinary hearing regarding the charges, at which Washington, Chaboty, and Granger testified.(Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. (Dkt. No. 61) ¶ 11;Declaration of Paul Gonyea ("Gonyea Decl")(Dkt. No. 57) ¶¶ 3-4) On August 21, 2006, at the conclusion of the hearing, Deputy Superintendent Gonyea found Washington not guilty of the stalking and soliciting charges, but found him guilty of violating "Rule 107.11, harassment verbal by gesture, also . . . comments of [a] personal nature to employee[]."(Gonyea Decl. (Dkt. No. 57) Ex. Bat 50)

"Rule 107.11 is part of Rule Series 107, which addresses an inmate's 'Interference with an Employee or Other Person.'"Washington v. Gonyea, 538 F. App'x 23, 26(2d Cir.2013)(citing7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 270.2(B)(8)).Rule 107.11 provides that

"[a]n inmate shall not harass an employee or any other person verbally or in writing.Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to, using insolent, abusive, or obscene language or gestures, or writing or otherwise communicating messages of a personal nature to an employee. . . ."

Id.(quoting7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 270.2(B)(8)(ii)).

In finding Washington guilty of a Rule 107.11 violation, Gonyea stated:

I found your conduct in this incident was harassing [in] that you asked to speak to the officer but you did not go to her desk.You called her and gestured for her to go into the office you were at.No one else was in the area at that time.You presented to the officer that you had a present for her.That was a message of a personal nature.

(Gonyea Decl. (Dkt. No. 57) Ex. Bat 51)

Gonyea also summarized the evidence he had relied on:

The evidence I relied upon is the following: the written report of Officer Chaboty and her verbal testimony that you asked to talk to her, that you remained in the Muslim office and . . . nodded for her to go into the office. . . .Officer Chaboty testifieds she felt intimidated and uncomfortable with you trying to get her to go into the office to speak to you, and you stating that you had a present for her.

(Id. at 50-51)

Gonyea imposed a disciplinary sanction of 65 days in the Special Housing Unit⁵ and a corresponding loss of privileges, including the privilege of attending congregate religious services.(Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. (Dkt. No. 61) ¶¶ 13, 16;Am. Cmplt.(Dkt. No. 20) ¶ 37).Washington alleges that Gonyea "stopped the recording [at the conclusion of the hearing] and told [Washington that]he only found [Washington] guilty . . . in order to separate him from staff and transfer him."(Am. Cmplt.(Dkt. No. 20) ¶ 39) Gonyea allegedly told Washington that "heknew [Washington] was not guilty of the charges but he had to impose the penalty of 65 days in order to justify transferring [Washington] to another facility."(Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 63)

Washington appealed the outcome of the Tier III disciplinary hearing, but Gonyea's decision was affirmed in October 2006.(Am. Cmplt.(Dkt. No. 20) ¶ 41;Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 68;Declaration of Jeb Harben ("Harben Decl.")(Dkt. No. 56) Ex. Bat 1) On January 18, 2007, Washington filed an Article 78 petition in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County, challenging the Tier III determination.(Am. Cmplt.(Dkt. No. 20) ¶ 59;Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 80)The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Appellate Division, Third Department.

On February 14, 2008, that court granted Washington's petition and annulled the August 21, 2006 disciplinary determination, ordering that it be expunged from Washington's institutional record.Washington v. Selsky, 48 A.D. 3d 864, 865(3d Dept.2008).Noting that Chaboty admitted that she had had previous conversations with Washington about religion, and that there was no evidence that Washington had "engaged in any inappropriate or disrespectful behavior [to her],"the court found that the disposition at the Tier III hearing was not supported by substantial evidence.Id.The court commented that Washington's "conduct appears to have been a continuation of a cordial relationship between the officer and petitioner."Id.

On March 13,2008, after the Third Department had annulled the disciplinary determination, Washington filed a grievance (No. SPT-43428-08), alleging violations of his constitutional rights, including the First Amendment claims alleged here.⁶(Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 20)at 4, ¶ 66;Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 83;Inmate Grievance Complaint (Dkt. No. 18)at 14-17) On March 19, 2008, the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee("IGRC") dismissedand closed the grievance, reasoning that Washington had exhausted all administrative remedies through disciplinary appeals.(Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 20)at 4, ¶ 67;Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 84;Response of IGRC (Dkt. No. 18)at 18) Washington appealed the IGRC decision to the Inmate Grievance Program Supervisor, who affirmed the decision on March 25, 2008.(Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 20)at 4, ¶ 68;Pltf. Aff.(Dkt. No. 51) ¶ 85;IGRC...