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

Heading: Of the Claim Against Defendant Williams

Text: We first review the order granting summary judgment insofar as it pertains to Sergeant Williams. The standard applicable to a motion for summary judgment, resolution of which [this Court reviews] de novo, is a familiar one. Summary judgment shall be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Powell v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 364 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2004); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). All reasonable inferences must be construed in the nonmoving party's favor, and if there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference in the [nonmoving party's] favor may be drawn, the moving party simply cannot obtain a summary judgment. R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane, 112 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). The District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Williams for Hill's failure to exhaust the requisite administrative review process as to Williams. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that [no] action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006). The PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). The grievance filed by Hill, the first step in the administrative process for a prisoner complaining of conditions at the Niagara County Jail, does not name Williams. There being no evidence that a grievance ever was filed against Williams by Hill, the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA has not been satisfied, and no genuine issue of material fact stands in the way of summary judgment in her favor.