Matter of Montgomery v. Jones, 54 N.Y.2d 95 (1981)

A prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies, such as the inmate grievance procedure under Correction Law § 139, before seeking judicial relief regarding prison administration matters.

Summary

Montgomery, a prison inmate, filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking expungement of a file notation indicating his involvement in an escape plan. The lower court ordered that the notation couldn’t be used against him unless a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Montgomery failed to exhaust the administrative remedy available to him under Correction Law § 139, which provides an inmate grievance procedure. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to resolve inmate grievances administratively before resorting to the courts, dismissing the proceeding without prejudice to allow Montgomery to pursue the grievance procedure.

Facts

Montgomery, an inmate, had a notation placed in his prison file alleging his involvement in an escape plan. He claimed this notation negatively impacted his prison life, including transfers and eligibility for privileges. He sought to have the notation expunged from his record. He argued he didn’t have the chance to confront his accuser and feared future disciplinary action would be difficult to defend against due to the passage of time and unavailability of witnesses.

Procedural History

Montgomery initiated an Article 78 proceeding in Special Term seeking expungement of the file notation. Special Term did not order expungement but prohibited consideration of the escape plan allegation unless a disciplinary proceeding was commenced. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a prison inmate must exhaust the administrative remedy available under Correction Law § 139, providing an inmate grievance procedure, before seeking judicial relief concerning a file notation alleging involvement in an escape plan.

Holding

Yes, because Correction Law § 139 establishes a comprehensive grievance procedure intended to resolve inmate complaints administratively before resorting to the courts, and the inmate’s complaint falls within the scope of that procedure.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized that Correction Law § 139 was enacted to provide a nonviolent means of resolving inmate grievances, motivated by the Attica uprising. The legislative intent was to create an alternative to burdening the courts with matters that could be resolved administratively. The Court cited the Governor’s message of approval, noting that the grievance resolution committees would “provide a meaningful and readily available forum for the fair resolution of grievances in each institution.”

The Court highlighted Directive No. 4040, which defines a grievance broadly as “a complaint about any behavior or action directed toward an inmate.” Given this definition and the Grievance Resolution Committee’s power to determine what falls within it, Montgomery’s complaint was deemed cognizable under the grievance program.

The Court distinguished this situation from cases where transfer decisions are considered purely administrative, noting that Montgomery’s primary concern was the file notation’s impact on his future prison life. The court acknowledged the Commissioner’s need to maintain institutional security but also recognized the potential for inmate unrest caused by adverse, unaddressed file entries. The court drew a parallel to Holt v. Board of Educ., where teachers had avenues for addressing critical evaluations in their files.

The Court dismissed the proceeding without prejudice, allowing Montgomery to pursue the grievance procedure, stating that “this proceeding should have been dismissed without prejudice… unless respondents must be held to have waived petitioner’s failure to resort to the grievance resolution procedure.” The Court rejected the argument that the state waived the exhaustion requirement, finding that the Assistant Attorney-General’s statements did not constitute a waiver. The Court emphasized that dismissal was without prejudice to allow Montgomery to pursue administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.