Carter v. Doc

7ermont Superior Court
Filed 03/28/25
Washington UUnit

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Case No. 23-CV-05082
65 State Street
Montpelier VT 05602
802-828-2091
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Bernard Carter V Commissioner Vermont Department of Corrections et al

Opinion and Order on Motion to Dismiss
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, including
the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC), are failing to give him
appropriate medical care for his back, including an MRI, which is medically
necessary, all in violation of 28 V.S.A. § 801. The DOC has filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are moot. Plaintiff
acknowledges the general obligation to exhaust the grievance process before filing
suit, and maintains that he has done so. The Court makes the following
determinations.
The facts are not contested for purposes of the motion. While he was
incarcerated at Northern State Correctional Facility, Plaintiff grieved his medical
claim through the DOC process up to the Commissioner. His claims were denied.
Defendant does not assert a failure to exhaust in that regard. Subsequently,
Plaintiff was transferred to an out-of-state facility in Mississippi. Plaintiff has not
grieved these issues at that facility. Defendant claims that the prior exhaustion is
now moot and that the failure to exhaust in Mississippi precludes this case. The
Court disagrees.
The Court has ruled on a similar issue multiple times in the past. For
example, in Crannell v. Pallito, 451-7-14 Wnev, copy attached, the Court rejected
just such a contention. The Court adopts that rationale here.
Nothing in Defendant's submission causes the Court to reconsider that
approach. No doubt, there may be circumstances where a grievance is linked toa
practice or personnel at a particular facility, or where the injunctive relief sought
would be directed solely at a particular facility or agent. A transfer would likely
moot such a case. Here, however, Plaintiff grieved his claim all the way to the
Commissioner, who denied his claim. Even if the Mississippi facility might be
managed by a different provider and a new grievance might obtain a different
result, Plaintiff is not required to wait for allegedly necessary medical care on such
a hope. He grieved his issue to the highest officer in the grievance chain. The
Commissioner is the ultimate arbiter–on the DOC side, at least–as to what medical
care DOC believes is medically necessary. See Plante v. State of Vermont, 22-CV-
01843, 2023 WL 7309286, Decision on Motion to Dismiss, at 4 (Vt. Super. June 7,
2023) (Tomasi, J.) (“[U]ltimate responsibility to assure that Vermont prisoners are
provided with adequate medical care lies squarely with the Vermont Department of
Corrections, regardless of where the particular prisoner is housed.”). Plaintiff
remains in DOC custody. Once someone has been denied care by the Commissioner,
the grievance is ripe for judicial review.
Some of the cases cited by Plaintiff are addressed by the attached order and
its rationale. Of the remaining ones, a closer examination confirms that they
involve either claims directed at conduct of a particular facility or sought relief
against such a facility or its personnel. The cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, on which most of those decisions are based, specifically limit
the scope of mootness as follows: Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 272 (2d Cir.
2006) (“In this circuit, an inmate’s transfer from a prison facility generally moots
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials of that facility.”);
Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411, 415 (2d Cir. 2002) (“A prisoner’s transfer to a
different correctional facility generally moots his request for injunctive relief
against employees of the transferor facility.”); Prins v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504, 506
(2d Cir. 1996) (“It is settled in this Circuit that a transfer from a prison facility
moots an action for injunctive relief against the transferring facility.... On the other
hand, the transfer does not moot an action for damages.”) (emphasis added to three
cases). Just so here.
WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is denied. The parties shall submit a
revised discovery schedule within 21 days.
Electronically signed on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

_______________________
Timothy B. Tomasi
Superior Court Judge