Girard v. Chuttey

Summary

Prisoner's § 1983 claims for excessive force, retaliation, medical indifference, and supervisory liability were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), where he filed his federal complaint before the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) ruled on his grievance and before the thirty-day decision period expired, and his second grievance was filed after suit. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that proper exhaustion requires compliance with agency deadlines and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the due process claim because the inmate received advance notice, a hearing with opportunity to present evidence, a fair and impartial officer, and a written disposition supported by "some evidence" under the extremely tolerant standard. The case also addresses the three Ross exceptions to exhaustion when remedies are unavailable, but none applied here.

Holdings

1. Girard failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he filed his initial complaint before the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) had either decided his appeal or the 30-day period to respond had elapsed, and his second grievance was filed after the complaint.
2. Girard did not establish a genuine dispute of fact that the defendants withheld evidence, as defendants presented evidence that no additional footage existed and Girard failed to support his claim with an affidavit or other evidence.
3. The transcript contradicted the claim; the hearing officer's interruptions were to stop questions about already established facts, not intimidation.
4. There was 'some evidence' to support the disciplinary charges, as required by due process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Girard exhausted his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for his excessive force, retaliation, failure-to-protect, medical indifference, and supervisory claims.
2. Whether Girard was deprived of due process during his disciplinary hearing due to denial of access to audio/video evidence, intimidating conduct by the hearing officer, and insufficient evidence to support the charges.

Disposition

affirmed