Fox v. Strafford County Department of Corrections, Superintendent
Filing
67
///ORDER granting 65 defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(lat)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Duane Leroy Fox,
Plaintiff
v.
Case No. 11-cv-295-SM
Opinion No. 2013 DNH 149
Superintendent, Strafford County
Dept. of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants
O R D E R
Duane Fox is a former pretrial detainee, who had been housed
at the Strafford County House of Corrections.
He brings this
action seeking compensation for alleged violations of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Specifically, he says the numerous individually named corrections
officers knew that he was uniquely vulnerable to attack because
he is homosexual and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Nevertheless, says Fox, those officers were deliberately
indifferent to his security needs and, as a consequence, he was
repeatedly sexually assaulted by another inmate over the course
of several days.1
1
Because Fox was a pretrial detainee at the time of the
alleged incidents that give rise to his complaint, his claims are
governed by the Fourteenth, rather than the Eighth, Amendment.
See Ruiz-Rosa v. Rullan, 485 F.3d 150, 155 (1st Cir. 2007);
Surprenant v. Rivas, 424 F.3d 5, 18 (1st Cir. 2005).
Defendants deny violating any of Fox’s constitutional
rights.
And, because they say Fox failed to exhaust available
prison administrative remedies, defendants assert that his claims
are barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
defendants move for summary judgment.
On that ground,
For the reasons discussed,
that motion is granted.
Standard of Review
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must
“view the entire record in the light most hospitable to the party
opposing summary judgment, indulging all reasonable inferences in
that party’s favor.”
(1st Cir. 1990).
Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record
reveals “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
P. 56(a).
Fed. R. Civ.
In this context, “a fact is ‘material’ if it
potentially affects the outcome of the suit and a dispute over it
is ‘genuine’ if the parties’ positions on the issue are supported
by conflicting evidence.”
Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers v. Winship Green Nursing Ctr., 103 F.3d 196, 199-200 (1st
Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
2
This case is somewhat atypical in that Fox has failed to
object to the pending motion for summary judgment.2
Accordingly,
the court accepts as admitted the factual statements recited in
that motion, as supported by the attached exhibits.
See Local
Rule 7.2(b)(2) (“All properly supported material facts set forth
in the moving party’s factual statement shall be deemed admitted
unless properly opposed by the adverse party.”).
See also Puerto
Rico Am. Ins. Co. v. Rivera-Vazquez, 603 F.3d 125, 131 (1st Cir.
2010) (discussing Puerto Rico’s analog to Local Rule 7.2(b)(2),
also known as the “anti-ferret rule,” and holding that, “This
type of rule is aimed at enabling a district court to adjudicate
a summary judgment motion without endless rummaging through a
plethoric record.
Given this root purpose, we have held with a
regularity bordering on the monotonous that parties ignore the
strictures of an ‘anti-ferret’ rule at their peril.”) (citations
omitted).
Importantly, however, Fox’s failure to object does not
automatically entitle defendants to judgment in their favor.
2
The
The court’s docket includes an entry indicating that
mail sent to Mr. Fox was returned as undeliverable. A subsequent
entry documents a conversation between court staff and an
official at the Inmate Records Division of the House of
Corrections, who reported that Fox was released from custody and
left no forwarding address. Despite his ongoing obligation to
notify the court of any change of address, see Local Rule
83.6(e), Fox has failed to provide the court will his current
mailing address or other contact information.
3
court must still determine whether the uncontested facts
presented by defendants, when viewed in the light most favorable
to Fox, entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law.
See,
e.g., Stonkus v. City of Brockton Sch. Dep’t, 322 F.3d 97, 102
(1st Cir. 2003).
Discussion
42 U.S.C. § 1997e, as amended by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), provides that:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 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.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (emphasis supplied).
The Supreme Court has
held that section 1997(e) requires an inmate to exhaust all
available administrative processes before filing a federal suit
that relates to the conditions of his or her confinement, even if
some or all of the relief the inmate seeks cannot be obtained
through those administrative processes.
Booth v. Churner, 532
U.S. 731, 734 (2001) (“The question is whether an inmate seeking
only money damages must complete a prison administrative process
that could provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated,
but no money.
We hold that he must.”).
4
Subsequently, the Supreme Court made explicit that which was
implicit in Booth: the phrase “with respect to prison
conditions,” as used in the PLRA’s exhaustion provision,
incorporates within its scope not just conditions generally
affecting the inmate population, but also discrete incidents
affecting only a single individual.
[T]he PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all
inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve
general circumstances or particular episodes, and
whether they allege excessive force or some other
wrong.
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).
And, most recently,
the Court held that the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires
“proper exhaustion.”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006).
“Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines
and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative
system can function effectively without imposing some orderly
structure on the course of its proceedings.”
(footnote omitted).
Id. at 90-91
So, to properly exhaust available
administrative remedies, “a prisoner must file complaints and
appeals in the place, and at the time, the prison’s
administrative rules require.”
Acosta v. United States Marshals
Serv., 445 F.3d 509, 512 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Pozo v.
McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002)).
5
Claims of the sort advanced by Fox are precisely the type
that must be properly exhausted through available prison
administrative processes before they may be pursued in federal
court.
However, the undisputed facts of record reveal that he
failed to properly exhaust those claims.
Specifically, the
record evidence establishes that:
1.
The Strafford County House of Corrections has
a multi-tiered administrative grievance
process that is applicable to all claims
relating to inmate life, conditions of
confinement, and allegations of
constitutional violations;
2.
That grievance process is explained in the
Inmate Handbook;
3.
Fox was provided with a copy of the Inmate
Handbook; and
4.
A review of the House of Corrections’ inmate
records revealed that Fox did not file a
single inmate grievance during the course of
his incarceration.
See Affidavit of Bruce Pelkie (document no. 65-2), at paras. 210.
Because Fox failed to properly exhaust available prison
administrative remedies relating to the claims advanced in this
case, and because nothing in the record suggests that this is one
of the rare and exceptional cases in which compliance with those
exhaustion requirements might properly be excused, see, e.g.,
6
Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 686 (2d Cir. 2004); Gibson v.
Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005), Fox cannot pursue his
claims that defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights
by deliberately failing to adequately protect him from other
inmates.
Conclusion
Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available
administrative remedies prior to filing his federal claims.
Defendants are, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on all claims advanced in Fox’s amended complaint.3
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (document no. 65) is
granted.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance
with this order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
November 7, 2013
3
Typically, if there were still time for Fox to pursue
his administrative remedies, the court would simply dismiss his
constitutional claims without prejudice. But, the record in this
case establishes that the time for pursuing those administrative
claims lapsed long ago. See Affidavit of Bruce Pelkie at para.
15.
7
cc:
Duane L. Fox, pro se
Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?