Hairston v. Newtown et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
CHARLES HAIRSTON,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	9:25-CV-707 (AJB/CBF)
B. NEWTOWN et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES HAIRSTON
Plaintiff, Pro Se
22-R-0567
Clinton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Dannemora, NY 12929
HON. LETITIA JAMES 	SUSANNA M. KLOSE, ESQ.
New York State Attorney General 	Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On June 5, 2025, pro se plaintiff Charles Hairston (“plaintiff”), an individual in the custody
of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), filed
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his civil rights while he was being
housed at Upstate Correctional Facility in April of 2025. Dkt. No. 1. Along with his complaint,
plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 5.
Case 9:25-cv-00707-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
On July 18, 2025, this Court granted plaintiff’s IFP Application, dismissed several claims,
and concluded that plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for excessive force and retaliation required a response
from defendants Newtown, Boyer, and Kenney. 	Dkt. No. 8. 	Thereafter, defendants moved for
pre-answer summary judgment because, according to them, plaintiff had failed to exhaust his ad-
ministrative remedies. Dkt. No. 18. Plaintiff received an extension of time to respond but ulti-
mately did not oppose defendants’ motion. See Dkt. No. 20.
On March 11, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla B. Freedman advised by Report & Rec-
ommendation (“R&R”) that defendants’ motion be denied. Dkt. No. 22. There, Judge Freedman
explained that plaintiff alleged that defendants had threatened his life because of his use of the
prison grievance system, and that other allegations in the complaint tended to suggest that defend-
ants had engaged in certain conduct because of plaintiff’s past use of the grievance system. Id. In
Judge Freedman’s view, these allegations raised material questions of fact concerning the availa-
bility of the prison grievance procedure at Upstate Correctional Facility, i.e., “whether Plaintiff
was thwarted from utilizing the grievance process through machination and/or intimidation.” Id.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 22. Upon review for clear error, Judge Freedman’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted.
See F ED. R. C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED; and
3. Defendants shall answer the complaint within fourteen days of the date of this decision.
Case 9:25-cv-00707-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions and set an answer
deadline accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 9:25-cv-00707-AJB-CBF Document 23 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 3