Stephenson v. Dunford

Second Circuit

Stephenson v. Dunford

139 F. App'x 311

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 2005

DocketDocket No. 04-3321

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 F. App'x 311 (Stephenson v. Dunford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephenson v. Dunford, 139 F. App'x 311 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dated May 10, 2004, grating defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

By agreement of the parties, see State of New York Letter Brief at 2, we vacate and remand the cause to the District Court to consider whether plaintiff has adduced “special circumstances in which ... the prisoner’s failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements may nonetheless have been justified.” Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 676 (2d Cir.2004); see also Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 689 (2d Cir.2004). As we noted in Hemp-hill, such circumstances might include an inmate’s reasonable belief that his attempt to exhaust available administrative remedies by writing directly to the Superintendent comported with the Department of Correctional Services’ procedural rules. Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 689-90.

We hereby VACATE the judgment of the District Court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dated May 10, 2004, grating defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

By agreement of the parties, see State of New York Letter Brief at 2, we vacate and remand the cause to the District Court to consider whether plaintiff has adduced “special circumstances in which ... the prisoner’s failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements may nonetheless have been justified.” Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 676 (2d Cir.2004); see also Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 689 (2d Cir.2004). As we noted in Hemp-hill, such circumstances might include an inmate’s reasonable belief that his attempt to exhaust available administrative remedies by writing directly to the Superintendent comported with the Department of Correctional Services’ procedural rules. Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 689-90.

We hereby VACATE the judgment of the District Court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. App'x 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephenson-v-dunford-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack