Opinion ID: 613658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Of the Claims against Curcione and Chawer

Text: The Supreme Court has held that the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). The proper exhaustion requirement specified by the Supreme Court imposes the obligation upon prisoners to comply with prison regulations requiring time limits. See id. at 95-96, 126 S.Ct. 2378. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Curcione and Chawer, citing Hill's failure to file his grievance in a timely manner. We hold that such a determination was error in this case. The Jail has adopted a formal grievance program pursuant to New York regulations setting forth the minimum standards and regulations for the management of county jails and penitentiaries. See N.Y. Comp. R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 7032.1-12 (2011). The program allows complaints about prison conditions to be submitted to a grievance coordinator. Id. § 7032.4(e). To be timely, grievance forms must be submitted to the coordinator within five days of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance. Id. § 7032.4(d). If the inmate disagrees with the decision of the coordinator, he may appeal to the jail's chief administrative officer within two days. Id. § 7032.4(h). A further appeal may be taken through the Citizens' Policy and Complaint Review Council of the New York State Commission of Corrections. Id. § 7032.5(b). It seems clear that Hill's grievance against Curcione and Chawer was untimely filed. The alleged assault by Curcione and Chawer occurred on March 28, 2007, and the Grievance Form was dated April 5, 2007 and received by the Grievance Coordinator on April 7, 2007. The Coordinator did not reject the grievance for untimeliness but, in a brief written decision, recognized Hill's claim of assault and found that [t]here is no evidence to support [Hill's] allegation of any wrong doing by an officer. While we have not yet done so, other circuits have held that a late filing that is accepted and decided on the merits fulfills the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA. In Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521 (7th Cir.2004), the Seventh Circuit noted a previous holding that, when a state treats a filing as timely and resolves it on the merits, the federal judiciary will not second guess that action, for the grievance has served its function of alerting the state and inviting corrective action. 375 F.3d at 524 (citing Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir.2002)). Citing Pozo, the Tenth Circuit has held that [i]f a prison accepts a belated filing, and considers it on the merits, that step makes the filing proper for purposes of state law and avoids exhaustion, default, and timeliness hurdles in federal court. Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1186 (10th Cir.2004). Today, we join the Seventh and Tenth Circuits and hold that the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA is satisfied by an untimely filing of a grievance if it is accepted and decided on the merits by the appropriate prison authority. Accordingly, we determine that Hill has met the exhaustion requirement in his original filing. The District Court's contrary determination was erroneous, though certainly understandable given the uncertain state of law in this Circuit at the time of its decision. When Hill's Grievance Form was returned to him with the Decision of the Grievance Coordinator, dated April 13, 2007, written thereon, Hill checked a box entitled: I wish to appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer and entered the date of April 14, 2007. The Chief Administrative Officer, Captain Vandetta, returned the Form, noting that Hill had two days to appeal and advising him that [y]our above date is not correct that you wrote. According to Captain Vandetta, the appeal was turned in with [two grievances] dated 4/25/07. Hill requested a further appeal, to which Captain Vandetta replied in writing: This is no longer grievable. Hill continues to insist that the date listed for his appeal was correct and that his appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer was timely. Curcione and Chawer rely on Captain Vandetta's handwritten note that the appeal was untimely, but present no other evidence in support of that contention. Accordingly, a genuine issue of material fact may exist as to the timeliness of Hill's appeal from the April 13, 2007 decision of the Grievance Coordinator. However, because that issue was never presented to the District Court, we do not resolve it on appeal. On remand, the District Court may request additional discovery and briefing on this point in connection with a renewed dispositive motion, or proceed directly to trial.