Moore v. Parsons et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (see attached). With consent of both parties and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will exercise its discretion to bifurcate the proceedings. The parties are instructed to first proceed with discovery and motion pr actice on the issue of administrative exhaustion before addressing the other issues, claims, and defenses in the case. Specifically, the parties should proceed in accordance with the following modified schedule. All discovery concerning the limited issue of Plaintiff's administrative exhaustion shall be completed by January 22, 2018. Defendants shall file any motion for summary judgment concerning Plaintiff's administrative exhaustion by February 22, 2019, and Plaintiff shall file his response to such motion by April 19, 2019. If so advised, Defendants shall file reply papers by April 26, 2019. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 10/16/2018. (Ghosh, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
TERRANCE MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
3:18-cv-00507 (CSH)
OFFICER MR. PARSONS, OFFICER MR.
TITUS, OFFICER MR. VARGAS, OFFICER
MR. SANCHEZ, CAPTAIN MR. G.
ROBLES, LT. MR. MELENDEZ, LT. MR.
PRIOR, WARDEN FANEUFF and DEPUTY
WARDEN MOLDEN, sued in both
individual and official capacities,

OCTOBER 16, 2018

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Haight, Senior District Judge:
On October 15, 2018, at the parties' request [see Doc. 26], this Court held a status conference
to discuss the progress of the case and the possibility of bifurcating pretrial proceedings to litigate
the issue of whether Plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative remedies in compliance with 42
U.S.C. § 1997e before proceeding to the merits of the underlying claims and other defenses. At the
status conference, the parties explained that, in the course of investigating their respective claims,
they had determined that there may be a dispositive issue of whether Plaintiff had exhausted his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. They further explained that "[b]ecause a meritorious
exhaustion defense could be dispositive of the entire case, the parties believe it is in the interest of
justice and judicial economy to litigate that issue first and fully before expending resources on other

1

issues, claims, and defenses in the case." [See Joint Motion For an Order Scheduling a Status
Conference (Doc. 26) at 2.]
The Court agrees with the parties that the interest of justice and judicial economy counsel
in favor of pretrial bifurcation here. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires a
plaintiff-prisoner to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit related to
prison conditions–and, conversely, a plaintiff-prisoner's unexcused failure to exhaust administrative
remedies warrants dismissal. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("No action shall be brought with respect to
prison conditions under § 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any
jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted."); see also, e.g., Hock v. Thipedeau, 245 F. Supp. 2d 451, 457 (D. Conn. 2003)
(dismissing plaintiff-prisoner's case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies).1 Because
litigation of the issue of administrative exhaustion may resolve the case and render further litigation
unnecessary, the Court will exercise its discretion to bifurcate the proceedings. See Amato v. City
of Saratoga Springs, 170 F.3d 311, 316 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[B]ifurcation may be appropriate where,
for example, the litigation of the first issue might eliminate the need to litigate the second issue[.]”;
Vichare v. AMBAC, Inc., 106 F.3d 457, 466 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that bifurcation may be
appropriate, inter alia, where “where litigation of one issue may obviate the need to try another
issue[.]”) The Court instructs the parties to first proceed with discovery and motion practice on the
issue of administrative exhaustion before addressing the other issues, claims, and defenses in the
case. See Rodriguez v. Warden, Metro. Corr. Facility, No. 13-cv-3643, 2015 WL 857817, at *4

1

Specifically, Plaintiff was required to follow the administrative processes set forth in the State of
Connecticut Department of Correction Administrative Directive 9.6, entitled "Inmate Administrative Remedies."
See STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE 9.6: INMATE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (2013), https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOC/Pdf/Ad/ad0906pdf.pdf?la=en.

2

(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2015) (ordering discovery on plaintiff-prisoner's administrative exhaustion prior
to addressing other claims and defenses).
The parties should proceed in accordance with the following modified schedule. All
discovery concerning the limited issue of Plaintiff's administrative exhaustion shall be completed
by January 22, 2018. Defendants shall file any motion for summary judgment concerning
Plaintiff's administrative exhaustion by February 22, 2019, and Plaintiff shall file his response to
such motion by April 19, 2019. If so advised, Defendants shall file reply papers by April 26, 2019.
The foregoing is SO ORDERED.

Signed: New Haven, Connecticut
October 16, 2018

/s/ Charles S. Haight, Jr.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

3