T he Cl er k of C our t i s di r ect ed t o a m end t he o ff i ci al ca pt i on t o co nf

or m t o t he l i s t i ng of

t he p ar t i es s t at ed *

a b o v e
. 1 07- 5478- pr D a y v . C h a p lin

UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER

Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citation to summar y order s f i l e d a f t e r Ja n u a r

y 1, 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m i t t e d a n d i s g o v e r n e d b y t h i s c o u r t ’ s Lo c a l Rule 32.1 and F ed er al Ru le of App ella te P r oc ed ur e 32 .1 . In a b r ie f o r ot he r pape r inwh ic h ali ti ga ntci te s a
su m m ar y o r de r , i n e achpa r ag r ap h i n whi ch a ci ta ti onap pe ar s, a t l eas t o ne ci ta ti onm us t e it he r be to th e Federal Append ix or be accompanied by t he not a ti on: “(sum mary or der) .” A party cit i n g a su m m a r

y o r d e r m u st se r

v e a c o p y o f t h a t su m m a r y o r d e r t o g e t h e r wi t hthe paperin which the sum mary or der is cited on any party not represented by counsel unless the summar y or de r is a vaila bl e i n a n ele ct r on ic da ta ba se whi ch is pu blic ly acc essi bl e wi th ou t p aym en t o f f ee (such as the datab ase avail able at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/ ). If no copy is served by
r eas onof th e av ai la bili ty

of th e o r de r

onsu cha d at ab ase , t he ci ta ti onm us t i nc lu de r ef er en ce to th at database and th e docket num ber of t he case in which the or der was entered.

Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at r ic k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, onth e t

wen ty fi ft h d ay o f N ov em be r

tw o t ho us an d a nd

ni ne .
PR E SE NT:

R O GE R J. M I NER , J OS É A. C AB R ANES , C HEST ER J. S T R AU B ,

Circuit Jud ges
.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x J A S ON M OURI CE D AY , Pl

aint iff -A ppella nt ,

v. No. 07-5478-pr

P AUL C H A P L IN , W

AY NE C HO I NSKY , T. B O G D AN O FF , C A P T A IN T R A V L IN , and J AM E S D ZU R EN DA ,

Defenda nts-App ellees

, T HERESA C. L

AN TZ , J AM E S M C G AU GHEY , N ANC Y B. A LI S BERG , B EN A. S O L N IT , D A V I D C. F AT HI , E R I N B OGGS , D A V I D B UD L ONG , M ARK B UCHAN AN , D O CTOR L A WL OR , T ER R ENCE M. O’ N EI LL , A NN E. L

YN CH , S T EV EN R. S T R OM , C O N N EC TI CU T D EPAR TM EN T O F M EN TA L H EA LTH , and O FFI CE O F C O N N EC TI CU T A T T ORNEY G EN ERAL ,

Defenda nts .*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

F OR P LAIN TIF F

- AP P ELLAN T: J as onM ou r ice D ay, pro se , Ch es hi r e, CT

FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELL EES: Ann E. Lync h, Assis tant Attorney General (R ichard B lu men th al, At to r ney

Gen er al, on the brief

), At to r ney Gen er al’ s Of

fi ce, S tat e of

Con nec ti cut , H ar tf

or d, CT
Appea l from a judgment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Dis trict of Connecticut (AlanH. Nev as , Judge

).

UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJU DG ED , AN D D ECR EED th at the j ud gm ent

of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i s AF F IRME D

. Plaintiff-appellant Jason Mour ice Da y (“plai ntiff” or

“Day” ) appea ls fr om a judgment of the Di s tr ict Cou r t whi ch ( 1) di s mi s s ed p lai nt if f’ s clai ms fo r

in ju nct ive r eli ef as mo ot and(2) gr ant ed summary judgment to the defendants-appellee s on plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c laims upon finding that plaintiff failed to exha ust his administrative remedies. We assume the parties’ familiarity with th e f actual andpr oce du r al his to ry of this cas e.

As an i ni ti al m att er , we agr ee wi thth e Di s tr ict Cou r t that

Day ’s clai ms fo r

in ju nct ive r eli ef hav e be en r end er ed m oo t. T ho s e claim s r elat ed t o his tr eat men t at th e Ga r ner

Cor r ect io nal Ins titution (“GCI”) and sought tr ansfer fr om that facility. Bec ause Day i s no longer housed at GCI, hi s clai ms fo r

in ju nct ive r eli ef ar e mo ot

. See Mawhinney v. Henderso n , 542 F.2d 1, 2 (2d C ir. 1976).

We r evi ew de novo an o r der gr ant in g s um mar

y ju dgm ent

. See, e.g. , Mi

lle r v . Wo lpo ff & Abram son, L.L .P. , 321 F.3d 292, 30 0 (2d Cir. 2003). Summa ry judgment is appropriate only if “there is no gen ui ne i s s ue as to any m ate r ial fa ct ” an d the m ov

in g pa r ty is “en ti tl ed t o j ud gm ent

as a mat te r of law.” Fed. R. C iv. P. 56(c).

Purs uant to the Pris on Litigation Re form Act (“PLRA” ), “[n]o action shall be brought with

r es pec t t o p r

is oncon di ti on s un der

[4 2 U. S.C. § 19 83] , o r

any o th er Fe der al l aw, b y a pr

is on er confined in a ny jai l, prison, or other correctional facili ty until such administrative remedies as are

ava ilable are exha usted.” 42 U.S.C . § 1997e (a). In Woodford v. Ngo , the Supreme C ourt held that the exh aus ti onr equ

ir eme nt of th e P LRAcann ot

be s ati s fi ed b y an “ un ti mel y or other wis e pr oce du r ally def ect ive adm inis tr ati

ve gr iev ance or app eal, ” an d that

th e P LRA

r equ ir es “pr op er

exh aus ti on ,” which “ means using all steps that the agenc y holds out, and doing so pro per ly (s o that th e agen cy add r es s es th e is s ues onth e me r it s ). ” 54 8 U. S. 8 1, 8 3- 84, 90 ( 200 6) (i nt er nal

qu ot ati onmar ks omitted). This Court has recognize d three qualifica tions to the PLRA’s exha ustion r equirement: “wh en ( 1) adm inis tr ati

ve r eme di es ar e no t av ail abl e t o the p r is on er ; ( 2) def end ant s hav e either waiv ed the defense of failure to exha ust or acted i n such [a] way

as to estop them from r aising the def ens e; o r (3 ) s pec ial

cir cum s tan ces , s uchas a r eas on abl e mi s un der s tan di ng o f the gr iev ance pr oce du r es , ju s ti fy

th e pr is on er ’s failu r e t o co mp ly wi thth e exh aus ti onr equ ir eme nt .” Ruggiero v

. County of Orange , 467 F.3d 170, 17 5 (2d Cir. 2006).3

We agr ee wi thth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t that

Day faile d p r op erly t o ex hau s t his adm inis tr ati ve remedies. The Distr

ict Court took judicia l notice of Administrative Directive 9 .6 of the Connec ticut Department of Correction, which “ provides that matters relating to [the] applic ation of departmental polic ies, rules and procedures, individual employ ee a ctions, and any other matters relating to ac cess to pr ograms, conditions of care and housing unit conditions are grievable ” and fu r th er no te d that

“pl ain ti ff ’s clai ms fall i nt o thes e cat ego r ies .” Day v. Lan tz

, N o. 03: 05 c v 13 47, s lip op. at 7-8 (D. Conn. Nov. 15 , 2007). The informal letters of complaint that Da y sent to the Con nec ti cut

Dep ar tm ent

of Cor r ect io n o ff ici als do no t c on fo r m t o the p r op er adm inis tr ati

ve remedy procedures established by the C onnecticut Depa rtment of Correction. Moreover, the af fi dav it s of th e gr iev ance coo r di nat or s at the f acil it ies whe r e Day was in car cer ate d es tab lis h that Day did not file a ny proper administrative grievanc es relevant to the cla ims r aised in his complaint.
Although Day

argues that he could not pursue a grieva nce with the Department of Correction based on a settlement a greement betwe en the State of C onnecticut Office of Protection and Advoc acy

for P ersons with Disabilities and C onnecticut prison officials, that agreement explic itly states that it does not alter the administrative remedie s availa ble to prisoners . Moreover, he h as pr es ent ed n o ev

id enc e s ho win g that

hi s mi s un der s tan di ng o f the av ail abl e gr iev ance procedures was reasonable. Ac cordingly, the District Court’s grant of summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administr ative remedi es was proper.

CONCLUSI ON

We ha ve considered a ll of plaintiff’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the fore go in g re a son s, t he ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D

.

FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court
By ______________________________