08-2079-pr Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t of Corr. Servs.
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
3 August Term, 2008
4 (Argued: June 15, 2009 Decided: August 19, 2011)
5 Docket No. 08-2079-pr 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 Lucy Amador, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Jeanette Perez, 10 Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, 11 12 Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, 13 Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise 14 Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, 15 Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants, 16 17 Stephanie Dawson, Shantelle Smith, 18 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 19 20 v. 21 22 Anginell Andrews, Superintendent, Roberta Coward, Dennis 23 Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Elaine Lord, Superintendent, Ronald 24 Moscicki, Superintendent, Melvin Williams, Superintendent, 25 Donald Wolff, DOCS Deputy Superintendent, Terry Baxter, DOCS 26 Director of Personnel, Richard Roy, DOCS Inspector General, 27 Barbara D. Leone, DOCS Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of the 28 Inspector General’s Office, Peter Brown, DOCS Director of the 29 Bureau of Labor Relations, Glenn S. Goord, DOCS Commissioner, 30 James Stone, Office of Mental Health Commissioner, Michael Evans, 31 DOCS Correction Officer, Michael Galbreath, Sergeant Smith, 32 Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Officer Sterling, 33 Delroy Thorpe, Pete Zawislak, Rick Larue, Rico Meyers, 34 Frederick Brenyah, Charles Davis, 35 Defendant-Cross-Defendants-Appellees, 36 37 Clarence Davis, DOCS Correctional Officer, 38 Defendant-Appellee, 39 40 1 John E. Gilbert III, Officer, 2 Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, 3 4 Chris Sterling, 5 Defendant-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, 6 7 James Hudson, 8 Cross-Claimant, 9 10 Delroy Thorpe, Department of Correctional Services, 11 Cross-Defendant.* 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
14 B e f o r e: WINTER, CABRANES, and HALL, Circuit Judges. 15 16 Interlocutory appeal from a dismissal of Section 1983 claims
17 by various present or former female inmates of New York state
18 prisons, individually and on behalf of a class, for injunctive
19 and declaratory relief, largely for protective measures against
20 sexual abuse and harassment, and a dismissal of individual claims
21 for damages entered by the United States District Court for the
22 Southern District of New York (Kevin T. Duffy, Judge). We lack
23 jurisdiction over the claims for damages but hold that the class
24 claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are not moot because
25 they fall within the exception for claims capable of repetition,
26 yet evading review. We vacate the judgment of the district court
27 in part and remand for further proceedings.
28 DORI LEWIS (Lisa A. Freeman, on the 29 brief), Prisoners’ Rights Project 30 Legal Aid Society, New York, New
* The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 York, and ALISON M. MIKKOR (Maeve 2 O’Connor, John S. Craig, Donna 3 Krouzman, Lauren Sypek on the 4 brief), Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, 5 New York, New York, for Appellants. 6 7 RICHARD O. JACKSON (Andrew M. 8 Cuomo, Attorney General, Barbara D. 9 Underwood, Solicitor General, 10 Benjamin N. Gutman, Deputy 11 Solicitor General, on the brief), 12 Office of the Attorney General, New 13 York, New York, for Supervisory 14 Appellees. 15 16 JOSEPH M. LATONA, Buffalo, New York 17 for Appellee Charles Davis. 18 19 CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY (David W. 20 Novak, on the brief), Hinman 21 Straub, P.C., Albany, New York, for 22 Appellees Michael Evans and Jeffrey 23 Shawver. 24 25 LINDA M. CRONIN (Rocco G. Avallone, 26 on the brief), Cronin & Byczek LLP, 27 Lake Success, New York, for 28 Appellees Rick Larue and Rico 29 Meyers. 30 31 Hogan Willig and Diane R. Tiveron, 32 of Counsel, Amherst, New York, for 33 Appellee John E. Gilbert III. 34 35 Rachel Meeropol, Center for 36 Constitutional Rights, New York, 37 New York, and Giavanna Shay, 38 Springfield, Massachusetts, for 39 Amici Curiae The National Prison 40 Project of the American Civil 41 Liberties Union Foundation, 42 National Prison Rape Elimination 43 Commissioner, Professor of Law 44 Brenda V. Smith, Stop Prisoner 45 Rape, and Legal Momentum, in 46 support of Appellants. 3 1 2 Joel Landau, James Bogin, Karen 3 Murtagh-Monks, for Amicus Curiae 4 Prisoners’ Legal Services of New 5 York, Albany, New York, in support 6 of Appellants. 7 8 WINTER, Circuit Judge:
9 Thirteen present and former female inmates of various New
10 York state prisons appeal from Judge Duffy’s dismissal of their
11 class action complaint. The complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. §
12 1983, sought declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the
13 Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) to alter its
14 practices and procedures so as to enhance the protection of the
15 class from sexual assault, abuse, and harassment. The complaint
16 also asserted individual claims for damages. The dismissal was
17 based on the grounds that some of the claims of named plaintiffs
18 were moot and that the remaining named plaintiffs had failed to
19 exhaust available remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
20 Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”). Appellees are individual line
21 officers (“line officer appellees”), various superintendents and
22 supervisors of certain New York State prisons, and DOCS officials
23 (“supervisory appellees”).1
1 The supervisory appellees include DOCS Superintendents Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Elaine Lord, Ronald Moscicki and Melvin Williams; DOCS Deputy Superintendent Donald Wolff; DOCS Director of Personnel Terry Baxter; DOCS Inspector General Richard Roy; DOCS Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of the Inspector General’s Office Barbara D. Leon; DOCS Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations Peter Brown; Office of Mental Health Commissioner James Stone; and DOCS Commissioner Glenn S. 4 1 A prior panel held that we have appellate jurisdiction over
2 the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 28
3 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t Corr.
4 Servs., No. 08-2079-pr (2d Cir. June 25, 2008). We hold that we
5 lack pendent appellate jurisdiction over the damages claims. We
6 also hold that the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief
7 by appellants who are now free but were in DOCS custody when they
8 brought suit are not moot. Applying a relation-back theory, we
9 hold that appellants’ class claims are capable of repetition, yet
10 evading review. We conclude that three appellants have exhausted
11 applicable internal prison grievance proceedings while the
12 remaining ten have not. We vacate the judgment in part and
13 remand for further proceedings.
Goord. Deputy Superintendent Donald Wolff has been sued only for damages. Several of these individuals may no longer be holding the named positions, but their successors are automatically substituted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). The line officer appellees include Charles Davis, Michael Evans, John E. Gilbert III, Rick Laru, Rico Meyers, and Jeffrey Shawver. The line officer appellees respond to damages claims by appellants Corilynn Rock, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Stacie Calloway, Hope Susoh, Latasha Dockery, and Tonie Coggins. We do not address appellants’ arguments with respect to its claims against the Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health (“OMH”). The supervisory appellees state, without contradiction, that the district court’s decision could not have addressed the appellants’ claims against the OMH as neither their motion to dismiss nor their opposition to appellants’ motion to reconsider purported to address appellants’ claims against the OMH. Accordingly, our disposition of this appeal does not encompass this claim and is rendered without prejudice to either parties’ arguments with respect to that claim on remand.
5 1 BACKGROUND
2 a) The Complaint
3 Appellants’ complaint seeks redress as individuals and as a
4 class for alleged sexual abuse and harassment in violation of
5 rights secured by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
6 Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The class is described
7 as “all present and future women prisoners in DOCS custody.”
8 Compl. at 67, Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t of Corr. Servs.,
9 No. 03 Civ. 0650(KTD) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2003). It alleges
10 that the approximately 3000 women prisoners in DOCS custody are
11 at any time subject to a substantial and unreasonable risk of
12 sexual abuse or harassment as a result of DOCS policies and
13 procedures. These policies and practices, alleged to present
14 common issues of law and fact, include the adequacy of DOCS’:
15 (i) screening, assigning, training, and supervising male staff,
16 and the staff at large, regarding sexual misconduct; (ii)
17 reporting and investigatory mechanisms for sexual misconduct; and
18 (iii) investigating and responding to complaints of sexual
19 misconduct. On behalf of the class, the complaint sought
20 injunctive and declaratory relief from the supervisory appellees,
21 who were alleged to have been aware of the abuse and to have
22 failed to take appropriate preventive measures. Appellants also
23 asserted individual claims for damages with respect to certain
6 1 line officers and one DOCS superintendent for their roles in
2 alleged sexual assault, abuse, and harassment of several
3 appellants while they were in DOCS custody. The conduct alleged
4 ranges from unwelcome touching and invasions of privacy to
5 assault and rape.2 More details of the allegations are provided
6 as relevant infra.
7 b) Procedural History
8 Each of the appellants was in DOCS custody when the
9 complaint was filed on January 28, 2003. A motion for class
10 certification was filed six months later, followed by an amended
11 complaint adding the claims of two new inmates, Stephanie Dawson
12 and Shantelle Smith. Shortly thereafter, appellees filed various
13 motions to dismiss.
14 On September 13, 2005, the district court granted the
15 motions in part, dismissing five plaintiffs’ injunctive claims on
16 the ground that they lacked standing because they had been
17 released from prison before joining the amended complaint. Two
18 of these plaintiffs, Corilynn Rock and Laura Pullen, now appeal.
19 The district court also converted defendants’ motion to dismiss
20 to one for summary judgment on the limited issue of exhaustion
21 and reserved judgment on the motion for class certification. See
2 Women entrusted to the custody of DOCS are deemed incapable of consent to sexual advances. See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05(3)(e). 7 1 Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t of Corr. Servs., No. 03 Civ.
2 0650 (KTD)(GWG), 2005 WL 2234050 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2005).
3 On December 4, 2007, the district court granted the motion
4 for summary judgment. See Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t of
5 Corr. Servs., No. 03 Civ. 0650 (KTD)(GWG), 2007 WL 4326747
6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2007). It dismissed as moot the injunctive
7 claims of Stephanie Dawson and Shantelle Smith because they had
8 been released from prison while the motion for class
9 certification was pending. The district court then dismissed for
10 failure to exhaust, the claims of Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins,
11 Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Kristina Muhleisen, Denise
12 Saffioti, Hope Susoh, and Nakia Thompson. Finally, the district
13 court dismissed the injunctive claims of Shenyell Smith against
14 the supervisory appellees on the ground that she failed to
15 identify any defendant other than the officer who was alleged to
16 have sexually assaulted her. Having dismissed all the claims
17 against the supervisory appellees for mootness or failure to
18 exhaust, the district court concluded that class certification
19 was not warranted. The district court dismissed all claims for
20 damages save those of Shenyell Smith against Officer Delroy
21 Thorpe. Id.
22 On plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, the district
23 court amended its order without explanation, to, among other
8 1 things, reinstate the claims for damages by certain plaintiffs:
2 Lucy Amador against Michael Galbreath and Robert Smith; Bette
3 Jean McDonald against John E. Gilbert III, Mario Pinque and
4 Donald Wolff; Jeanette Perez against Sergeant Smith, Chris
5 Sterling, and Pete Zawislak; Stephanie Dawson against Federick
6 Brenyah; and Shantelle Smith against James Hudson.
7 This appeal followed.
8 DISCUSSION
9 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
10 novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-
11 moving party. Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 310 (2d Cir.
12 2006). Whether a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies
13 under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is
14 also a question reviewed de novo, see Johnson v. Rowley, 569 F.3d
15 40, 44 (2d Cir. 2009), as are questions of mootness. White River
16 Amusement Pub., Inc. v. Town of Hartford, 481 F.3d 163, 167 (2d
17 Cir. 2007); Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 787 (2d Cir. 1994).
18 a) Jurisdiction Over The Damages Claims
19 We have appellate jurisdiction over non-final orders of the
20 district courts’ “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or
21 dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify
22 injunctions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). A prior panel concluded
23 that appellate jurisdiction should be exercised over appellants’
9 1 injunctive claims because the district court’s denial of that
2 relief “might have serious, perhaps irreparable consequence” and
3 “can be effectually challenged only by direct appeal” prior to
4 the entry of final judgment. See Amador, No. 08-2079-pr (2d Cir.
5 June 25, 2008) (quoting Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 475 F.3d
6 465, 467 (2d Cir. 2007)).
7 Appellants ask that we exercise pendent jurisdiction to
8 review the interlocutory orders dismissing some of their
9 individual claims for damages. They argue that our review of the
10 district court decision dismissing the injunctive claims entails
11 resolution of the same issue as the dismissed damages claims:
12 whether appellants satisfied the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements.
13 See, e.g., Lamar Adver. of Pa., LLC v. Town of Orchard Park, 356
14 F.3d 365, 371-72 (2d Cir. 2004); Stolt-Nielsen SA v. Celanese AG,
15 430 F.3d 567, 576 (2d Cir. 2005).
16 “[W]here our jurisdiction is properly founded upon the
17 district court’s ruling on a preliminary injunction under 28
18 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), our review extends to all matters
19 inextricably bound up with the preliminary injunction.” Lamar
20 Adver. of Pa., LLC, 356 F.3d at 371 (internal quotations omitted
21 and modifications incorporated). Section 1292(a)(1), however,
22 provides only a “narrowly tailored exception” to the final
23 judgment rule and its “policy against piecemeal appellate
10 1 review.” Cuomo v. Barr, 7 F.3d 17, 19 (2d Cir. 1993). To be
2 “inextricably intertwined” requires, for example, that review of
3 “the otherwise unappealable issue is necessary to ensure
4 meaningful review of the appealable one.” Britt v. Garcia, 457
5 F.3d 264, 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
6 No such necessity exists here. Although prisoners seeking
7 injunctive relief and those seeking damages are each required by
8 the PLRA to exhaust internal grievance procedures, see generally
9 Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001), the overlap in legal
10 issues is at a very high level of generality. A resolution of
11 the dispute over exhaustion of the damages claims would not
12 necessarily overlap with the resolution concerning exhaustion
13 with regard to injunctive relief. There is, therefore, an
14 insufficient basis for us to justify the application of an
15 exception to an exception, i.e., the exercise of jurisdiction
16 over claims pendent to a claim reviewable only as an exception to
17 the final order rule. Under these circumstances, a measure of
18 self-restraint is desirable, particularly because appellants’
19 proffered justification for pendent jurisdiction does not
20 distinguish them from most litigants seeking both injunctive
21 relief and damages.
11 1 b) Exhaustion and the Grievance Procedure
2 The PLRA provides in pertinent part:
3 No action shall be brought with respect to prison 4 conditions under section 1983 of this title, or 5 any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in 6 any jail, prison, or other correctional facility 7 until such administrative remedies as are 8 available are exhausted. 9 10 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 11 12 The purpose of the PLRA is “to reduce the quantity and
13 improve the quality of prisoner suits . . . [and to afford]
14 corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints
15 internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.”
16 Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663, 667 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting
17 Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002)) (modifications in
18 original). Section 1997e(a) requires “proper exhaustion” -– that
19 is, “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so
20 properly.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (quoting Pozo
21 v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002)) (emphasis
22 omitted). This entails both “complet[ing] the administrative
23 review process in accordance with the applicable procedural
24 rules,” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88, and providing the “level of
25 detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance
26 procedures.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007); see also
27 Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2009). Exhaustion
28 is mandatory –- unexhausted claims may not be pursued in federal 12 1 court. See Johnson, 569 F.3d at 45 (citing Jones, 549 U.S. at
2 211).
3 We turn now to the various written materials concerning New
4 York’s Inmate Grievance Procedure3 (“IGP”) and to various
5 practices that have developed under it. We discuss the
6 application of the procedure and practices to appellants infra.
7 The IGP defines a grievance as “a complaint about the substance
8 or application of any written or unwritten policy, regulation,
9 procedure or rule of the [DOCS] or any of its program units, or
10 the lack of a policy, regulation, procedure or rule.” N.Y.C.R.R.
11 § 701.2(a) (1994); cf. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.2(a) (2006) (“[A]
12 complaint, filed with an IGP clerk, about the substance or
13 application of any written or unwritten policy, regulation,
14 procedure or rule . . . or the lack [thereof]”). The pertinent
15 IGP provides a three step process for the handling of such
16 complaints.
3 First established in 1976 pursuant to New York Corrections Law § 139, the Inmate Grievance Program (“IGP”) has undergone a series of revisions and modifications. See Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119, 125 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting minor revisions in 2006); Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 685-86 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting minor revisions in 2004); Patterson v. Smith, 53 N.Y.2d 98, 101- 02 (1981). DOCS’ policies and procedures for the IGP are set forth in Part 7 of Title 7 of the New York Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations, and are mirrored with minor refinements in DOCS Policy and Procedure Manual Directive Number 4040. See N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 7, (“N.Y.C.R.R.”) § 701.1 et seq; New York Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4040 (1998) (“Directive No. 4040"). The complaint described incidents that occurred between 1999 and 2003. Accordingly, the relevant regulations are those that were in effect before the 2004 and 2006 revisions. See Espinal, 558 F.3d at 125 (noting that the relevant regulations were those in effect when the prisoner filed the grievances at issue).
13 1 To initiate the process, an inmate must file a written
2 complaint with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee
3 (“IGRC”), a facility committee composed of inmates and appointed
4 staff members. See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.4-.5. The complaint must
5 “contain a concise, specific description of the problem and the
6 action requested.” N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(a)(1)(i) (1998) (now
7 codified as amended at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(a)(2) (2007)). Second,
8 the inmate can appeal an unfavorable IGRC determination to the
9 superintendent of the facility. See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(b) (1998)
10 (now codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(c)
11 (2007)). Finally, an inmate can appeal an unfavorable
12 superintendent’s determination to the Central Office Review
13 Committee (“CORC”). See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(c) (1998) (now
14 codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(d)
15 (2007)); Directive No. 4040.
16 This scheme specifically contemplates challenges to DOCS
17 policies and procedures. For example, when a grievance involves
18 “changes in policy,” the IGRC is required to submit a
19 recommendation to the superintendent, which, if accepted, can be
20 appealed. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(a)(4)(vi) (1998) (now codified as
21 amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(b)(3)(ii) (2007)).
22 Of particular importance to the proceeding before us is the
23 provision that only those inmates who are affected by a policy or
14 1 procedure, or lack thereof, may bring such a challenge. (“An
2 inmate must be personally affected by the policy or issue he/she
3 is grieving, or must show that he/she will be personally affected
4 by that policy or issue unless some relief is granted or changes
5 made. All grievances must be filed in an individual capacity.”)
6 In addition, grievances alleging employee harassment, that
7 is “employee misconduct meant to annoy, intimidate or harm an
8 inmate,” see N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(a) (1994) (now codified and
9 renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.2(e) (2006)), can be processed
10 through an expedited procedure created for the review of such
11 grievances. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b) (1994) (now codified at
12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(b)-(h) (2006)); Directive No. 4040, VIII.
13 Pursuant to this expedited procedure, an inmate can report an
14 alleged incident of harassment to the employee’s supervisor.
15 Such a report does not, however, “preclude submission of a formal
16 grievance.” N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(1) (1994) (now codified as
17 amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(a) (2006));
18 Directive No. 4040, VIII(A). Any allegation of employee
19 misconduct or harassment is to be given a grievance number,
20 recorded with all other grievances in the grievance log and
21 forwarded to the superintendent for his consideration.
22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(2) (1994) (now codified as amended and
23 renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(b) (2006)); Directive No. 4040,
15 1 VIII(B). If the superintendent (or his or her designee)
2 concludes that the grievance is not a “bona fide case of
3 harassment,” the superintendent returns the grievance to the
4 ordinary procedure. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(3) (1994) (now
5 codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(c)
6 (2006)); Directive No. 4040, VIII(C). If the grievance presents
7 a “bona fide harassment issue,” the superintendent can elect to:
8 (i) initiate an in-house investigation, (ii) request an
9 investigation by the Inspector General’s Office; or (iii) in the
10 event of criminal activity, request an investigation by the New
11 York State Police. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(4) (now codified as
12 amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(d) (2006)) Directive
13 No. 4040, VIII(D). An inmate can then appeal the
14 superintendent’s determination to the CORC, provided she does so
15 within four days. See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(6)-(7) (1994) (now
16 codified as amended at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(g)-(h) (2006) (now
17 providing an inmate with seven days to appeal to the CORC)); see
18 also Directive No. 4040, VIII(E)-(G).
19 The class action complaint contains allegations about the
20 actual practices followed under the IGP. Upon arrival at DOCS,
21 it is alleged, female prisoners receive an orientation to DOCS
22 policies and practices. The orientation encourages inmates to
23 lodge sexual misconduct complaints with any official, including
16 1 the Inspector General (“IG”), as well as DOCS supervisory staff
2 and employees, whether orally or in writing. The IG’s Office,
3 and in particular, its Sex Crimes Unit, is alleged by the
4 complaint to be the alternative administrative mechanism DOCS
5 established to handle complaints of staff abuse. The Sex Crimes
6 Unit receives more than 200 complaints of sexual misconduct every
7 year. According to the complaint, it is DOCS’ standard practice
8 to refer such complaints to the IG for investigation, whether
9 initiated by formal grievance or informal complaint. DOCS’
10 ensuing response is also alleged to be inadequate by failing to
11 initiate an investigation in a timely manner, failing to
12 adequately investigate and credit inmate complaints, failing to
13 maintain confidentiality, and failing to address any
14 substantiated allegations meaningfully.
15 According to appellants, inmates at DOCS facilities are
16 provided with various materials regarding DOCS policies and
17 procedures with respect to sexual abuse complaints.4 For
18 example, at Bedford Hills, the intake facility for all female
19 inmates, see DOCS Directive No. 0046, the Orientation Manual
20 urges female inmates to “report [sexual abuse] . . . to a
4 Not all inmate orientation manuals expressly address sexual misconduct; some simply explicate the IGP. See Albion Correctional Facility Orientation Manual 9-10 (2002); Taconic Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 62-64 (2000).
17 1 supervisor immediately, go to grievance and make a record of the
2 allegation, and write to the Superintendent or any official that
3 you are comfortable approaching. Write to the Inspector General
4 . . . if you feel more comfortable going directly outside the
5 facility.” Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Inmate
6 Orientation Manual 3 (1999); see also Bedford Hills Correctional
7 Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 3 (2000)(same); Bedford Hills
8 Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 4 (2003)
9 (“[R]eport [sexual misconduct] to any member of [Bedford Hill’s]
10 Executive Team or to Inmate Grievance”). The record demonstrates
11 that the policies conveyed by the inmate orientation manuals to
12 female inmates are reinforced through memoranda and postings at
13 the various prison facilities. Staff consistently testified that
14 it was DOCS policy to allow women with complaints regarding
15 sexual abuse to report such incidents to a variety of DOCS staff
16 and officials.
17 The Bedford Hills Orientation Manual also describes the IGP,
18 explaining that a “grievance is a complaint about the substance
19 or application of any written or unwritten policy, regulation,
20 procedure, or rule of the facility or department, or the lack of
21 a policy or procedure.” Bedford Hills Correctional Facility
22 Inmate Orientation Manual 36 (1999); see also Bedford Hills
23 Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 41 (2000);
18 1 Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 4
2 (2003).
3 On this record, it is clear that, under DOCS policies and
4 procedures, an IG investigation of alleged acts of sexual abuse
5 is an integral part of the internal grievance procedure. The
6 record contains testimony and email correspondence indicating
7 that DOCS instructs its staff not to conduct any investigation
8 into sexual abuse and that the grievance procedure operates only
9 as a pass-through to the Sex Crimes Unit. Indeed, women
10 prisoners who did pursue relief through the IGP were told that
11 their complaints had been forwarded to the IG for investigation
12 and appropriate action. All thirteen appellants had their
13 allegations of sexual misconduct investigated by the IG, no
14 matter how initiated.5
15 It is clear, therefore, that the first step in the grievance
16 procedure for an inmate alleging sexual abuse is an IG
17 investigation, whether or not a request for policy/procedure
18 reform is included. Such allegations, when presented to a
5 The district court stated that “[e]ach Plaintiff alleges that she complained to the Inspector General about her sexual abuse.” The court found that Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, and Kristina Muehleisen complained to the immediate supervisor of the alleged abuser. The court also found that Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, and Shenyell Smith all grieved to a DOCS official that “they felt comfortable approaching.”
19 1 superintendent, were routinely referred to the IG. Moreover, an
2 IG determination about abuse of an inmate can be appealed to CORC
3 when the determination is reported to and accepted by the
4 superintendent.
5 The grievance procedures are further complicated when
6 challenges to DOCS policies concerning sexual misconduct are
7 made. As noted, the regulations governing the IGP specifically
8 contemplate its use to pursue challenges to existing policies as
9 well as challenges that a policy should be created where one does
10 not exist. See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.2(a) (defining grievance as “a
11 complaint about the substance or application of any written or
12 unwritten policy . . . or the lack of a policy”). As noted,
13 appellants’ complaint asserts just such a challenge.
14 However, an inmate may not challenge a policy, or lack
15 thereof, without a showing of concrete injury, N.Y.C.R.R. §
16 701.3(b), in this case an act of sexual abuse. Three appellants
17 filed such grievances and appealed through all levels of the IGP
18 procedure: Shenyell Smith, Stephanie Dawson, and Shantelle
19 Smith. All three had their grievances investigated by the IG.
20 When the allegation of an act of abuse is combined with a claim
21 for reform of policies and the abuse determination is unfavorable
22 to the inmate, both claims can be pursued on appeal from the IG
23 or superintendent to CORC. But, it appears on this record that
20 1 CORC does not entertain the claim for policy change unless the
2 allegation of an act(s) of sexual abuse is upheld. In these
3 three cases, the allegations of acts of sexual abuse were denied.
4 In none of the three cases did any correctional official or
5 tribunal ever mention the grievances’ challenge to policies and
6 procedures.
7 c) Mootness of the Injunctive Claims
8 Of course, a class action cannot be sustained without a
9 named plaintiff who has standing. Kendall v. Emps. Ret. Plan of
10 Avon Prods., 561 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir. 2009) (“In a class
11 action, once standing is established for a named plaintiff,
12 standing is established for the entire class.”) The district
13 court held that the claims of those appellants who have been
14 released are moot and that the relation-back doctrine does not
15 preserve those claims for judicial review. Because the claims of
16 all plaintiffs were then dismissed for either mootness or a
17 failure to exhaust, the district court stated “[t]here is no need
18 to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which is
19 hereby denied.” Amador, 2007 WL 4326747 at *9.
20 We conclude that the relation-back doctrine applies to the
21 claims of the plaintiffs who have been released and preserves
22 their claims for adjudication for purposes of a class action.
21 1 The standing requirement winnows out disputes that would be
2 inappropriate for judicial resolution for lack of three
3 constitutionally required elements: (i) an injury in fact (ii)
4 that is fairly traceable to the defendant and (iii) that is
5 likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v.
6 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); McCormick ex
7 rel. McCormick v. School Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275, 284
8 (2d Cir. 2004). Similarly, the mootness doctrine ensures that
9 the occasion for judicial resolution established by standing
10 persists throughout the life of a lawsuit. See Comer, 37 F.3d at
11 798. Consequently, in the usual case, if the basis for the claim
12 has been rectified or if the plaintiff is no longer subject to
13 the challenged conduct, the claim is moot. See Armstrong v.
14 Ward, 529 F.2d 1132, 1135 (2d Cir. 1976).
15 The relation-back doctrine, however, has unique application
16 in the class action context, preserving the claims of some named
17 plaintiffs for class certification purposes that might well be
18 moot if asserted only as individual claims. For example, in
19 Gerstein v. Pugh, a class challenged Florida’s practice of pre-
20 trial detention without a probable cause hearing. 420 U.S. 103
21 (1975). Although the named class representatives had been
22 convicted after the district court’s certification of the class
23 and before the court was able to pass on the claims, the Court
22 1 held the case was not moot because it fell within “a narrow class
2 of cases in which the termination of a class representative’s
3 claim does not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the
4 class.” 420 U.S. at 110 n.11 (citing Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393
5 (1975)). The Court reasoned that the issue was unlikely to be
6 resolved before a plaintiff was convicted or released. Id. An
7 individual could, therefore, suffer repeated deprivations under
8 the challenged practice, and it was certain that a continuing
9 class of similarly situated persons would suffer the
10 constitutional harm alleged. Id.
11 In both Sosna and Gerstein, the mootness of the named
12 representative’s claim arose after certification of a class.
13 Each decision noted that the usual case required a live
14 controversy at the time of the filing of the complaint and the
15 class certification. Sosna, 419 U.S. at 398, 402; Gerstein, 420
16 U.S. at 110 n.11. Sosna, however, recognized that in certain
17 cases, the claims of the named plaintiffs might become moot
18 before the district court had ruled on a certification motion:
19 “In such instances, whether the certification can be said to
20 ‘relate back’ to the filing of the complaint may depend upon the
21 circumstances of the particular case and especially the reality
22 of the claim that otherwise the issue would evade review.” 419
23 U.S. at 402 n.11.
23 1 We have applied the relation-back theory to recipients of
2 public assistance alleging that action on their applications for
3 public assistance was unlawfully delayed by the state. See
4 Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993). In that
5 decision, we concluded that because the state would almost always
6 process a delayed application before relief could be obtained
7 through litigation and some of the appellants alleged that they
8 expected to need public assistance in the future, the claims were
9 not mooted by their receipt of benefits after the filing of the
10 complaint. Id. at 938-39.
11 We have also applied the relation-back doctrine to class
12 claims of racial discrimination and segregation in public housing
13 in New York by low-income minority individuals. Comer, 37 F.3d
14 at 797-801. We held that, because of the particular combination
15 of a highly fluid public housing population, whose claims were
16 “acutely susceptible to mootness,” and a two-year delay before
17 the district court denied class certification, the class
18 certification, which was granted on appeal, related back to the
19 complaint. Id.
20 Whether claims are inherently transitory is an inquiry that
21 must be made with reference to the claims of the class as a whole
22 as opposed to any one individual claim for relief. See U.S.
23 Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 399-400 (1980);
24 1 Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 110 n.11. According to the supervisory
2 appellees, there is nothing inherently transitory about
3 appellants’ claims because inmates serve a range of terms of
4 imprisonment. Thus, they argue, while some inmates may be
5 released before their claims can be adjudicated, others will
6 remain incarcerated long enough for courts to adjudicate their
7 claims. We disagree.
8 We have previously observed that “a significant
9 characteristic” of claims subject to the “capable of repetition,
10 yet evading review” exception is that the mootness resulted from
11 “a factor closely related to the essence of the claim.” Swan v.
12 Stoneman, 635 F.2d 97, 102 n.6 (2d Cir. 1980). As such, these
13 claims “involve[] issues that [are] likely to evade review, no
14 matter who prosecute[s] them.” Id. Although a close issue, we
15 conclude that this exception applies.
16 This action is brought on behalf of all women inmates in
17 DOCS custody, alleging constitutionally defective policies and
18 procedures in failing to protect female inmates from sexual
19 harassment, abuse, and assault by male staff. While the entire
20 class may be exposed to the risks caused by the constitutionally
21 defective policies and procedures alleged, as noted, the
22 grievance procedure may be triggered only by an inmate who has
23 been a victim of sexual misconduct. Because the number of
25 1 inmates subjected to acts of misconduct can be a small fraction
2 of the total inmates at risk, the odds of an inmate being able to
3 complete the grievance procedure and litigate a class action
4 while still incarcerated are rather small. All thirteen
5 appellants were in DOCS custody when they commenced the action;
6 only four remained incarcerated when the district court rendered
7 its September 13, 2005 decision.6 Four appellants have been
8 released and subsequently reincarcerated during the course of
9 these proceedings,7 and of these, only two, remained in custody
10 following the filing of the notice of appeal.8
11 Accordingly, we conclude that it was error for the district
12 court to dismiss as moot the claims of the individual plaintiffs
13 who had been released from prison after the filing of the amended
14 complaint. See Wilkerson v. Bowen, 828 F.2d 117, 121 (3d Cir.
15 1987) (“It would seem to us that the principle espoused in
16 Geraghty is applicable whether the particular claim of the
17 proposed class plaintiff is resolved while a class certification
18 motion is pending in the district court (as in the present case)
6 1 Stacie Calloway, Kristina Muehleisen, Nakia Thompson and Shenyell 2 Smith were incarcerated at that time. [A 6952, 6954, 6955, 6956] 3 7 The four appellants are Corilynn Rock, Stacie Calloway, Tanya Jones and Denise Saffioti.
8 The two appellants are Corilynn Rock and Denise Saffioti.
26 1 or while an appeal from denial of a class certification motion is
2 pending in the court of appeals (as in Geraghty). In neither
3 event is the plaintiff automatically disqualified from being a
4 class representative . . . .”); Wade v. Kirkland, 118 F.3d 667,
5 670 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that, in light of the potential for
6 a prisoner’s claim to be “inherently transitory,” the action
7 could qualify for an exception to mootness, and if so found on
8 remand, the district court could validly certify a class, “since
9 the ‘relation back’ doctrine will relate to [plaintiff’s]
10 standing at the outset of the case”).
11 d) Exhaustion by Appellants
12 Having held that the relation-back theory applies, we now
13 address whether any of the individual plaintiffs have properly
14 exhausted internal prison remedies.
15 Of the thirteen appellants, nine made internal complaints,
16 investigated by the IG, that sought redress only for the alleged
17 actions of the particular officer and did not seek a change in
18 policies or procedures.9 These nine have, therefore, not
19 exhausted their internal remedies with regard to the complaint in
20 the present action.
21 Another appellant, Stacie Calloway, complained about a
9 The nine individuals are Nakia Thompson, Hope Susoh, Denise Saffioti, Corilynn Rock, Laura Pullen, Kristina Muehleisen, Latasha Dockery, and Tonie Coggins.
27 1 sexual assault. However, her affidavit also states that she
2 informed the IG that sexual abuse was a problem affecting other
3 inmates and that no one kept track of what the officers were
4 doing. We believe that this complaint sufficiently raises
5 systemic issues relating to policies and procedures regarding the
6 prevention of sexual abuse. To be sure, she did not ask for the
7 precise relief sought in this action, but she adequately alerted
8 the authorities as to her claim of systemic issues. However,
9 Calloway did not appeal to CORC, which is the final step in the
10 grievance procedure for raising issues regarding DOCS polices.
11 The issue, then, is whether her failure to exhaust should be
12 excused.
13 In Hemphill v. New York, we established a three-part inquiry
14 to guide the analysis of whether a plaintiff has met the
15 requirements of Section 1997e(a) of the PLRA. 380 F.3d at 686.
16 The first part, which is not an issue here, is a determination
17 that administrative remedies were in fact available to the
18 prisoner. Id. at 686-88. The second part considers whether
19 defendants forfeited the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion by
20 failing to raise or preserve it, or whether defendants’ own
21 actions inhibiting the inmate’s exhaustion of remedies estops one
22 or more of the defendants from raising the exhaustion defense.
23 Id. at 686, 688-89. The third part requires consideration of
28 1 whether, if the requirements of step two were not met, special
2 circumstances excuse the plaintiff’s failure to pursue or exhaust
3 administrative remedies. Id. at 686, 689-91. If any of the
4 three parts is satisfied, the prisoner is deemed to have
5 exhausted internal procedures for purposes of the PLRA.
6 Subsequent decisions have questioned the continued viability
7 of this framework following the Supreme Court’s decision in
8 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). In Woodford the Court
9 addressed whether “a prisoner can satisfy the [PLRA’s] exhaustion
10 requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally
11 defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Id. at 83-84.
12 The Court resolved the question in the negative, explaining that
13 PLRA requires “proper exhaustion,” that is “using all steps that
14 the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency
15 addresses the issues on the merits).” Id. at 90 (emphasis
16 omitted). We have questioned whether, in light of Woodford, the
17 doctrines of estoppel and special circumstances survived. See
18 Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37, 43 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[W]e need
19 not decide what effect Woodford has on Hemphill’s holding that
20 where administrative procedures are confusing a reasonable
21 interpretation of prison grievance regulations may justify an
22 inmate’s failure to follow procedural rules to the letter.”)
23 (internal quotations omitted); Ruggiero v. County of Orange, 467
29 1 F.3d 170, 176 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that “[w]e need not
2 determine what effect Woodford has on our case law in this area”
3 because the prisoner’s estoppel and special circumstances
4 arguments nonetheless failed).
5 We too decline to reach the issue, concluding that, even
6 under pre-Woodford caselaw, Calloway has failed to establish that
7 defendants are estopped from raising exhaustion as a defense or
8 that special circumstances excuse her failure to exhaust.
9 A prisoner may invoke the doctrine of estoppel when
10 “defendants took affirmative action to prevent him from availing
11 himself of grievance procedures.” Ruggiero, 467 F.3d at 178.
12 Prior cases have held that verbal and physical threats of
13 retaliation, physical assault, denial of grievance forms or
14 writing implements, and transfers constitute such affirmative
15 action. See, e.g., Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 688; Ziemba v. Wezner,
16 366 F.3d 161, 162 (2d Cir. 2004). No such conduct prevented
17 Calloway from appealing to CORC. Nor were there special
18 circumstances relieving Calloway of the obligation to exhaust the
19 IGP procedures. It is clear that challenges to DOCS policies or
20 lack thereof, the subject matter of this lawsuit -- where coupled
21 with a claim of sexual abuse -- must be pursued through the CORC
22 level. While this is a somewhat complex scheme, it hardly
30 1 constitutes special circumstances. Calloway’s grievance was thus
2 not exhausted.
3 Two other appellants, whose complaints were dismissed as
4 moot but to which we have applied the relation-back doctrine,
5 Shantelle Smith and Sheynell Smith, alleged both assaults and a
6 failure to protect and completed the grievance procedure.
7 Shenyell Smith wrote a letter addressed “To Whom It May
8 Concern” that was logged as a grievance on January 3, 2002. The
9 letter alleged that she had been harassed for a period of three
10 months, retaliated against, and sexually assaulted by an officer.
11 With respect to the relief sought, she stated, “This officer is
12 still working on this unit and its not right. I feel that [the
13 officer] should seek counseling [and be] removed . . . , fired
14 and any other [precaution] that is there.” The superintendent
15 responded that “[a] significant portion of this complaint has to
16 do with issues turned over to the Inspector General’s Office for
17 investigation in accordance with Departmental procedures.
18 Grievance denied in that no basis was found for your
19 allegations.” She appealed the grievance. On February 20, 2002,
20 CORC denied it, stating, “Upon full hearing of the facts and
21 circumstances in the instant case, the action requested herein is
22 hereby denied. CORC upholds the determination of the
23 Superintendent for the reasons stated.”
31 1 Shantelle Smith filed a grievance with the IGRC on July 10,
2 2003, alleging a sexual assault by an officer. With respect to
3 corrective action, she stated, “I am seeking monetary damages for
4 the reason that the State had a duty to protect me and failed to
5 do so, thus rendering their misactions as a ‘Failure to Protect’,
6 a most serious dereliction of their duty to provide for my care,
7 custody and control.” On July 11, 2003, the superintendent
8 responded, neither granting nor denying the grievance, stating
9 only, “Your grievance has been forwarded to the Inspector
10 General’s office for further investigation.” Shantelle appealed,
11 and on September 10, 2003, CORC denied the grievance, stating,
12 “CORC upholds the determination of the Superintendent for the
13 reasons stated. CORC notes that the grievant’s allegation of
14 sexual misconduct . . . has been forwarded to the appropriate
15 Central Office personnel for investigation. Any action deemed
16 necessary and appropriate will be taken as a result of that
17 investigation.” That disposition states that any final action
18 would be taken by the IG. No favorable action was taken by the
19 IG, and we deem the grievance procedure exhausted.10
20 Each of these inmates completed the IGP procedure. The
21 issue is whether a claim of a failure to protect is sufficient
10 CORC’s response to Shenyell Smith’s and Shantelle Smith’s appeals was identical to its response to Stephanie Dawson’s appeal, discussed infra. Appellees agree that Dawson exhausted the grievance procedure.
32 1 exhaustion with regard to litigation seeking systemic relief.
2 The issue, in our view, is whether a reasonable corrections
3 official would recognize a complaint alleging a failure to
4 protect a female inmate from a sexual assault by a male officer
5 as raising issues regarding DOCS policies and procedures. We
6 believe that it would. To be sure, a “grievance may not be so
7 vague as to preclude prison officials from taking appropriate
8 measures to resolve the complaint internally.” Brownell, 446
9 F.3d at 310. However, a failure to protect involves conduct by
10 officials superior to the officer accused of the misconduct and
11 suggests the need for policy and procedural reform. While the
12 complaint asks for a result -- protection -- rather than
13 specifying the means used to reach that result, the need for the
14 result is clearly articulated and the appropriate means are far
15 more within the expertise of DOCS than the individual prisoner.
16 A fourth appellant, Stephanie Dawson, clearly alleged an act
17 of sexual misconduct, clearly sought systemic reform along the
18 lines of the class action complaint, and clearly exhausted the
19 IGP procedure. Her claim was dismissed as moot by the district
20 court but is now revived by application of the relation-back
21 doctrine.
22 Dawson filed her grievance with the IGRC on February 25,
23 2003. She alleged that she was raped by an officer at the prison
33 1 where she was incarcerated. In describing her grievance, she
2 stated, “Taconic didn’t provide protection from Correctional
3 Officer sexual assault on me.” Dawson requested various relief
4 including: (i) “For DOCS to train and assign and supervise staff
5 so that [she would] not again [be] subjected to this kind of
6 abuse”; (ii) “For DOCS to conduct a full and complete
7 investigation”; (iii) “That [the officer] should be disciplined”;
8 and (iv) “That [she] continue to receive mental health
9 counseling.” In response, the superintendent concluded that “an
10 investigation by the DOCS Inspector General’s Office is in
11 progress.” When Dawson sought to appeal, she was advised that an
12 appeal would be “redundant.” Dawson nonetheless pressed her
13 appeal, and CORC upheld the superintendent’s decision. CORC
14 noted that “the complaint has been forwarded to the appropriate
15 Department personnel for investigation. Any action deemed
16 necessary will be taken as a result of the investigation.”
17 The parties agree that Dawson’s grievance was both
18 procedurally and substantively exhausted. Because Dawson’s role
19 as plaintiff is not mooted by her release for reasons stated
20 supra, she is entitled to pursue a role as class representative.
21 Our conclusion that the district court erred when it failed
22 to relate those claims it deemed moot back to the filing of the
23 complaint does not automatically establish that the three
34 1 appellants affected, Stephanie Dawson, Shantelle Smith, and
2 Sheynell Smith, are entitled to litigate the interests of the
3 class they seek to represent. See Sosna, 419 U.S. at 403 (“This
4 conclusion does not automatically establish that appellant is
5 entitled to litigate the interests of the class she seeks to
6 represent, but it does shift the focus of examination from the
7 elements of justiciability to the ability of the named
8 representative to ‘fairly and adequately protect the interests of
9 the class.’” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a))). In a separate
10 proceeding, a previous panel of this court denied appellants’
11 application for leave to appeal the denial of class certification
12 by the district court. Accordingly, the propriety of class
13 certification is not before us.
14 CONCLUSION
15 We dismiss the damages claims for lack of jurisdiction. We
16 vacate the judgment of the district court with respect to the
17 claims designated in this opinion, and remand for further
18 proceedings consistent with the opinion.