Anthony Harry v. Jeremy Rodriguez; Diona Velez

Summary

The Eastern District of New York granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Anthony Harry’s action alleging that correctional officers retaliated against him and violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights through a strip search, and that one officer failed to intervene. The court held that a broad general release signed by Harry in a prior settlement unambiguously barred claims arising before September 3, 2020, including the November 6, 2019 incident. The court also concluded that Harry failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Holdings

1. A pro se plaintiff's failure to submit a Rule 56.1 counterstatement with an earlier pre-motion conference response did not require the court to deem defendants' factual assertions admitted where plaintiff later filed a counterstatement, defendants responded to it, and defendants identified no prejudice.
2. The court could entertain defendants' general-release affirmative defense at the summary-judgment stage because the delay did not establish bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice, or a need for additional discovery.
3. The general release was clear and unambiguous and released the City of New York and its employees from plaintiff's civil-rights claims arising from events occurring through September 3, 2020, including the November 6, 2019 strip-search claims.
4. Plaintiff's failure to file a formal grievance concerning the strip search meant that he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the PLRA, independently entitling defendants to summary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's late Rule 56.1 counterstatement required the court to deem defendants' factual assertions admitted.
2. Whether defendants could assert and enforce the general release at the summary-judgment stage despite not pleading it earlier.
3. Whether the general release unambiguously released plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment claims arising from the November 6, 2019 strip search.
4. Whether plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the merits of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim and on his claim for compensatory damages.

Disposition

other