AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies
Monthly Law
Journal Article: Prison Litigation Reform Act:
Exhaustion of Remedies - Part One, 2011 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prison Litigation Reform Act:
Exhaustion of Remedies - Part Two, 2011 (5)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
|
A former federal prisoner sued under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, #301, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), asserting that he was denied his due process rights because he was quarantined without a hearing during a prison scabies infestation. A federal appeals court upheld rulings that the PLRA exhaustion requirement applied to May and that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were available to the plaintiff, so that summary judgment for the prison camp administrator was properly granted. May v. Segovia, #17-1458, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20694, 2019 WL 3048512 (10th Cir.). |
A Spanish-speaking prisoner sued prison administrators and officers for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. He was accused of failing to have exhausted available administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. He argued that these remedies were unavailable to him as the grievance procedures were only described to him in English, which the prison knew he did not understand. A federal appeals court agreed. Because no one ever informed him of the grievance process in a way that he might reasonably understand, that process was unavailable to him and he was excused from the exhaustion requirement. Ramirez v. Young, #15-3298, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 28437 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner was assaulted by his cellmate and filed informal and formal “assault requests” that were denied. He was subsequently transferred to another cell. A counselor had allegedly warned him that unless he stopped filing requests she would place him with a new cellmate known for assaulting other prisoners. An officer allegedly told him that he was being moved because he “didn’t listen.” His new cellmate allegedly threatened to kill him. He subsequently claimed to have suffered cuts, bruises, and emotional distress during altercations with his new cellmate. Because he feared further retaliation, he did not file a grievance at his facility, but rather with a Regional Director, who rejected it and directed him to file it at his facility, noting that there was “no record of you being assaulted by your previous or current cellmate. . . your appeal is denied." His further appeal to the General Counsel was denied on the merits. A federal appeals court vacated, in part, the dismissal of his claims. The court found that his Assault Request was denied at the highest level on the merits and was properly exhausted under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). His Retaliation Request satisfied the objective test for unavailability. Accepting his allegations as true, “a reasonable inmate of ordinary firmness and fortitude” would be “deter[red] . . . from lodging a grievance.” A Federal Tort Claims Act claim, however, was properly dismissed as concerning discretionary functions. Rinaldi v. U.S., #16-1080, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 25805 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner complained about inadequate medical treatment. His initial treatment was only for a rash. He received four further treatments, but increasingly experienced problems with daily living activities, and was finally rushed to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a rare muscle disease and returned to the facility with medication. His condition worsened until he could no longer eat, sleep, sit up, lie down, or move. He tried to prepare a complaint form about his allegedly inadequate treatment but was unable to do so. He was transported in a wheelchair to a dayroom for assistance, as he was unable to write. All of the recreational tables there, however, were occupied, and he was returned to his cell where no visitors were allowed after being denied permission to use a study table. Hospitalized for two months, he then returned to the facility, but did not file a grievance. He decided to sue and then learned that he first had to file a grievance. When he did so, it was rejected as untimely. An institutional examiner testified that his condition would have been “good cause” to extend the filing period for the grievance, but not for as long as it took him. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), his lawsuit was rejected for failure to exhaust administrative remedies within 14 days, as required by Wisconsin law. A federal appeals court vacated. Whether a grievance procedure is unavailable does not depend whether the defendants engaged in affirmative misconduct, but whether the plaintiff was not able to timely file the grievance through no fault of his own. Concluding that nothing prevented him from filing the grievance immediately after he returned to the facility improperly held him responsible for failing to follow a procedure of which he was not aware and which was not in the facility handbook. Lanaghan v. Koch, #17-1399, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 24565 (7th Cir.).
An Arkansas inmate sued three prison officials for allegedly requiring him to work with deadly chlorine gas without proper training and safety gear. The trial court granted summary judgment to the officials based on the inmate’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). A federal appeals court, accepting the plaintiff's declaration as true, held that one defendant misled the plaintiff and thus the formal grievance procedure was unavailable to him. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's judgment as to one defendant where the plaintiff did not file his formal grievance in time. In regard to the other two defendants, the appeals court held that the informal complaint process was capable of use and could have provided some relief and thus the administrative exhaustion requirement applied regardless of whether the formal grievance procedure was later available to plaintiff. In the alternative, the plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies against these two defendants. Accordingly, the court upheld the trial court's judgment as to these two defendants. Townsend v. Murphy, #17-2783, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 21628 (8th Cir.).
Most of a prisoner’s civil rights claims were properly rejected for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, but summary judgment on his excessive force claim based on an alleged 2010 assault by a staff member was vacated. A genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether he exhausted that claim because there was a conflict between the prison’s records and the plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Some type of notice and an opportunity to respond are needed before a trial court decides factual disputes regarding exhaustion. Paladino v. Newsome, #15-2058, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 6557 (3d Cir.).
As three correctional officers were preparing inmates to walk from the cell house to dinner, an inmate rushed out of his cell and attacked one of them. The other two officers took him to the ground, ordered him to “cuff up,” and claimed that he violently resisted. They denied striking him after he was restrained, but the inmate claimed that he was compliant and restrained in handcuffs when one of the officers used pepper spray on him. He also asserted that the officers then continued to beat him while he was restrained. His version of the incident was supported by his former cellmate and he stayed in the infirmary overnight with various cuts and bruises, a shoulder that appeared abnormal and complaints of pain. The next morning, the facility doctor sent him to a hospital, where another doctor treated his dislocated shoulder about 24 hours after the fight. A federal appeals court upheld dismissal of deliberate indifference claims against facility nurses because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) on claims against them. It also upheld trial court findings that the officers were more credible than the plaintiff and his witnesses and judgment in favor of all the remaining defendants. It was reasonable to infer from the officers’ testimony that the inmate sustained his injuries, including the facial injuries, when the officers tackled him and wrestled him into submission after he attacked them. Wilborn v. Ealey, #16-2106, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 2825 (7th Cir.).
A Rastafarian prisoner sued as a pauper, challenging the discontinuation of Rastafarian worship services in his prison. He appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. A federal appeals court held that failure to exhaust plaintiff's administrative remedies was not a proper basis for dismissal, since a failure to exhaust was not apparent on the face of the complaint. Further, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants’ refusal to allow the group Rastafarian service substantially burdened his religious practices. The dismissal of claims against the prison chaplain was upheld, however, as the plaintiff failed to allege his involvement in the manner necessary to impose liability. Wilcox v. Brown, #16-7596, 877 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2017).
A trial court dismissed a federal
civil rights lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedy as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). A federal
appeals court reversed, holding that while the plaintiff was incarcerated when
he began his lawsuit, he was free when he filed his amended complaint, so he
was not then a “prisoner” as defined by the statute, so the exhaustion of
remedies requirement did not apply to him. Jackson v. Fong,
#15-15547, 870 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2017). An
inmate missing toes on his right foot fell and was injured while going up
stairs to his upper-tier cell. He sued correctional defendants and the trial
court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). A federal appeals court
found that the dismissal, entered on the trial’s court’s own motion, was
improper. It was not clear from the face of the complaint that administrative
remedies were not exhausted. In such cases, failure to exhaust is an
affirmative defense and plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate exhaustion
in their complaint. A court cannot dismiss a complaint on that basis without
first giving the plaintiff an opportunity to address the issue. Custis v.
Davis, #15-7533, 851 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2017).
After prison staff members
failed to respond to a prisoner’s grievance alleging excessive use of force
against him, he filed a state court writ of habeas corpus regarding his attempt
to exhaust the claim. He also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming
that administrative remedies were unavailable because of the failure to process
his grievance. The state court granted habeas relief, finding that the
grievance had been timely filed, and ordering the grievance to be processed.
The federal trial court dismissed the excessive force lawsuit, finding that
administrative remedies had not been exhausted at the time it was filed. A
federal appeals court vacated, ordering further proceedings. It reasoned that
the plaintiff prisoner had exhausted his available administrative remedies
prior to filing suit. “When prison officials fail to respond to a prisoner’s
grievance within a reasonable time, the prisoner is deemed to have exhausted
available administrative remedies” within the meaning of the PLRA. Andres v. Marshall, #15-56057, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis
6990 (9th Cir.).
An
inmate claimed that correctional employees failed to prevent an assault on him
by his cellmate that caused a broken ankle and also left the injury untreated
for months. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling
that the prisoner had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). A
federal appeals court reversed, finding that the plaintiff had made a timely
complaint to the facility’s complaint examiner and filed a second
administrative complaint. Correspondence was then sent to him at the facility
after he was transferred elsewhere to a mental health facility where he was
forced to take psychotropic drugs. The trial court’s ruling ignored the fact
that he had done the best he could under these circumstances Prisoners can’t be
required to exhaust remedies that are unavailable to them, the court commented. Weiss
v. Barribeau, #16-3039 2017 U.S. App.
Lexis 6063 (7th Cir.).
A federal appeals court
reinstated a prisoner’s claim that he was beaten by prison officers while he
was restrained in handcuffs and legs irons. There was a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether the officers’ use of force resulted in the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or suffering. The court upheld the
dismissal of a claim against one officer for failure to intervene, however, as
the prisoner had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies on
that claim as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Manley v.
Rowley, #15-15320, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 1590 (9th Cir.).
A former jail detainee sued
four county detention officers, claiming that they beat him without
justification. A jury found one of the officer liable, awarding both $10,000 in
compensatory damages and $4,000 in punitive damages. A federal appeals court
held that the trial court did not err in concluding that he complied with the
Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997(e)(a), exhaustion of
remedies requirement, Further sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding
that the officer was liable for excessive force. Since that was enough to
support the damages awarded, the appeals court did not have to address the
defendant officer's challenges to the jury's other findings of bystander
liability or state law assault. Cowart v. Erwin, #15-10404, 2016 U.S. App.
Lexis 16736 (5th Cir.).
After a corrections
officer allegedly intentionally injured an inmate by twisting his arm
"real hard" and said “since today is my last day, I wanted to leave
you with a present,” the prisoner submitted a sick call request and filled out
a form describing the incident and asking for an investigation. While he was
assessed and received medication, no investigation followed, and his follow-up
requests for a decision were ignored. Overturning a finding of a failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, a federal appeals court found that the
exhaustion of remedies provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was
satisfied by the prisoner's attempt to avail himself of the prison's
administrative processes and the prison's noncompliance with its own deadline.
Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, #14-2994, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13650
(3rd Cir.).
A prisoner sued two correctional officers for
allegedly brutally beating him for talking back to a third officer. On the
issue of whether the plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) prior
to filing suit, a federal appeals court found that the prison's grievance
procedures were not available to the plaintiff. This was because they were so
confusing that they were, “practically speaking, incapable of use.” Williams v.
Correction Officer Priatno, #14-4777, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12775 (2nd Cir.).
As two guards undertook to move an inmate to a
segregation unit, one of them allegedly assaulted him, pnnching him in the
face. The prisoner sued that guard for excessive force and the second guard for
failing to take protective action. A jury found the first guard liable, but the
second raised as a defense the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that
a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. The
prisoner argued that an internal investigation of the incident was a
substitution for the grievance procedures. A federal appeals court overturned
the dismissal of the failure to protect claim on exhaustion of remedies
grounds. It held that "special circumstances" could excuse failure to
comply with administrative procedural requirements, especially when the
prisoner mistakenly, but reasonably, believed that he sufficiently exhausted
his remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this ruling. “The Fourth
Circuit's unwritten 'special circumstances’ exception is inconsistent with the
text and history of the PLRA.” The exhaustion of available administrative
remedies is mandatory under the statute. However, under circumstances were an
administrative remedy is officially on the books but not actually available,
operating as a dead end, it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use. It
is also not "available" if prison administrators thwart prisoners
from using it by intimidation or misrepresentation. Further proceedings were
required to determine whether the prisoner actually had an "available
administrative remedy." Ross v. Blake, #15-339, 2016 U.S. Lexis 3614
An Indiana inmate sued prison staff members for
allegedly failing to protect him from assault by other inmates who threw feces
at him on four occasions over a two-year period. The trial court dismissed the
lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform (PLRA) by pursuing grievances. The prisoner
claimed, however, that prison staff members had interfered with his filing of
formal grievances. A federal appeals court found that summary judgment had been
improper for three of the four incidents--in one case, prison staff had
returned his grievance form unprocessed, and in two other instances, he asked
his counselor and unit manager for a grievance form but they refused to do so,
even though they were responsible for giving him such a form upon request. The
plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies as to
the remaining incident, however, since he had failed to resubmit his formal
grievance form to correct the statement that he had accepted an informal
resolution; Hill v. Snyder, #15-2607, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6206 (7th Cir.).
A motorist convicted of aggravated DUI causing a
death was rendered a quadriplegic in the accident. He was taken into custody while
hospitalized for treatment of pressure wounds. Under the county sheriff's
policy, he was shackled to his hospital bed by one hand and one foot. He was
later sent to the county jail and then to a county hospital, where the
shackling continued. He claimed that this interfered with doctors' instructions
that he move every two hours to help his sores heal, and that his recovery was
stunted. The jail's grievance procedure, described in a handbook he never
received, required him to file a written grievance within 15 days, which he
never did. He did, however, complain orally, and after he was discharged from
the hospital and entered the jail's general population, he had other inmates
file grievances for him, since he could not write. He appealed from the denial
of one such grievance. A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of his
lawsuit for excessive force and deliberate indifference for failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies. He had no remedies available to him while
hospitalized and uninformed of the grievance procedures, and he did properly
exhaust his administrative remedies when finally able to do so. Hernandez v. Dart,
#15-2493, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 3426 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he was severely beaten by
a correctional officer and then placed in isolation and deprived of food after
being treated for his injuries. He initiated a three step grievance process,
but never received a response. He then submitted a notice of grievance form to
the inspector of institutional services, but again received no response. He
sent another communication about the status of his grievance, and again
received no response. He then sued. A federal appeals court found that he was
not required to proceed to the third stage of the grievance procedure after he
received no reply at the first and second steps. The grievance procedure was
silent about the need to proceed to the third step after a non-response to the
second step. Troche v. Crabtree, #15-3258, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 3277, 2016 Fed.
App. 49P (6th Cir.).
A California inmate sued over alleged deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court dismissed the
lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies because the
prisoner failed to comply with a procedural rule requiring him to name two
physicians involved in his care, which he claimed was inadequate.. A federal
appeals court found that the prisoner exhausted "such administrative
remedies as are available" in a case where, despite failing to comply with
a procedural rule, prison officials ignore the rule and decide a grievance on
its merits, as they did here. The grievance gave prison officials full notice
of the alleged deprivation and an ample opportunity to resolve it. Reyes v.
Smith, #13-17119, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 433 (9th Cir.).
A female prisoner who was pregnant when she
arrived at a county jail claimed that the jail employees were deliberately
indifferent in failing to take a proper medical history, failing to respond to
several requests for medical assistance, and failing to react quickly enough
when she went into labor. As a result, she further claimed, her child suffered
serious birth defects. She was taken to a hospital where she gave birth and
then returned to the jail where she was transferred to another facility after
four days. The trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies at the jail. Even had she been
informed upon her return to the jail from the hospital that he had only four
days to file a grievance, that time period would have been an unreasonable
deadline to impose on a woman right after she gave birth to a severely impaired
child. White v. Bukowski, #14-3185, 800 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2015).
An Illinois state inmate claimed that a prison's
medical staff were deliberately indifferent to the results of 11 blood tests it
administered over a period of five years, during which he progressed from
pre-diabetic to diabetic, even failing to tell him, until the last test, that his
blood glucose levels were dangerously high. A federal appeals court held that
the allegations, if true, did constitute deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. The two-year statute of limitations would have tolled between the
time he discovered that he was diabetic and when he filed suit, since he was
then engaged in exhausting available administrative remedies as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. Nally v. Ghosh, #14-3426, 799 F.3d 756 (7th Cir.
2015).
In deciding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies on one of his grievances, the trial court enforced a
procedural bar that the prison may have waived when prison officials made a
decision on the merits despite the fact that the manner in which the prisoner
brought his grievance was procedurally flawed. Further, the prisoner's lawsuit
for an alleged beating by prison staff for which he was denied medical
treatment was improperly dismissed when the court failed to follow the
applicable two-step procedure for deciding exhaustion of remedies challenges.
It failed to accept the prisoner's facts as true and did not identify and
resolve particular factual disputes to determine if administrative remedies
were exhausted. Whatley v. Warden, #13-15117, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16836 (11th
Cir.).
In a prisoner's lawsuit concerning alleged
inadequate medical treatment, the trial court erroneously granted summary
judgment to the defendants on the basis of the plaintiff's alleged failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies when the defendants failed to
establish that there was an available procedure that the plaintiff did not
exhaust. Without knowing more about what the applicable grievance procedures
were, it was impossible to determine whether the plaintiff exhausted them, so
further proceedings were ordered. Cantwell v. Sterling, #14-51095, 788 F.3d 507
(5th Cir. 2015).
In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming excessive use of
force by prison guards, his fear caused by an alleged threat of retaliation by
one guard might be sufficient to essentially render an inmate grievance
procedure unavailable and to excuse his failure to exhaust it. In this case,
his claim that he perceived the guard's statements that he was
"lucky" because his injuries "could have been much worse"
to be threats that he should not use the grievance system was sufficient to
satisfy the subjective prong of a test excusing exhaustion, but he failed to
show a sufficient objective basis for his belief that he would suffer
retaliation for using the grievance system, so his failure to exhaust was not
excused. McBride v. Lopez, #12-17682, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11192 (11th Cir.).
The trial court erroneously dismissed a
prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he faced unlawful retaliation for filing
grievances based on an alleged failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The alleged threats
of retaliation by various defendants showed why he could not have filed the
grievance about the reprisal internally at the facility, meeting the conditions
for instead filing a grievance directly with the Secretary of the State
Department of Correction. Dimanche v. Brown, #12-13694, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
6339 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that officials and employees
had violated his rights by failing to respond to his grievances asserting that
his uniform and linens were not changed often enough, that he was exposed to
second-hand tobacco smoke, and that he was given a haircut against his will
with unsterilized scissors. The lawsuit was properly dismissed for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. The failure of prison officials to
respond to a prisoner's grievances at the preliminary stage did not excuse him
from exhausting the remaining steps. Wilson v. Epps, #13-60574, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 321 (5th Cir.).
An Indiana prisoner who was a paraplegic claimed
that correctional officials failed to adequately accommodate his disability. He
claimed that he was subject to humiliating toileting arrangements, assigned to
a cell that was so small that he had to move his wheelchair when his cellmate
needed to use the toilet, had to travel over sidewalks that resulted in him
tipping out of his wheelchair, that he was excluded from job training,
transported in vehicles not equipped for wheelchairs, and denied access to the
library and weight room. The defendants argued that he had failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies, to which he claimed that such efforts would
have been futile as he was threatened when he filed grievances. The trial court
properly granted summary judgment to the defendants without first holding a
separate hearing on the futility argument. A federal appeals court found no
error, although stating that it would have been preferable to first hold such a
hearing, but that the futility argument could be decided in ruling on summary
judgment. In this case, there were no disputed issues of material fact.
Additionally, the state Department of Corrections and its Commissioner in his
official capacity were not persons for purposes of a Sec. 1983, as claims
against them were claims against the state. The plaintiff failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies on all but two of his disability
discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
Rehabilitation Act--but the longer waits and humiliation he suffered by being
transported in a van not equipped for wheelchairs did not amount to a denial of
service. The failure to repair his wheelchair also did not show disability
discrimination, especially as he was provided with a new wheelchair backrest
before he filed his grievance. Wagoner v. Ind. Dep't of Corrections, #13-3839,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1783 (7th Cir.).
A female prisoner claimed that prison officials
put her in danger and caused gang members to threaten her by starting rumors
that she was a convicted sex offender and changing her prison records. She
could proceed with her appeal as a pauper despite having previously suffered
"three strikes" by having lawsuits dismissed as frivolous when she
argued that she faced an imminent danger at the time she filed the notice of
appeal. Further proceedings were ordered on the issue of exhaustion of
available administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, #13-56004, 2014 U.S. App.
Lexis 24694 (9th Cir.).
A man claimed that he had been denied needed
medical care for a pre-incarceration abdominal bullet wound during his nine
months as a pretrial detainee in a county jail. The trial court dismissed the
lawsuit for failure to properly exhaust available administrative remedies as
there was no record of his having filed a grievance. He testified that he had
never received or been allowed access to a copy of the jail's grievance
procedure, while acknowledging that he knew of the existence of the procedure
from other prisoners. He also stated that he had asked a guard for a grievance
form, but never received one. There was testimony from another prisoner who
overheard the plaintiff ask for a grievance form. There was also evidence that
the plaintiff met with the warden, who promised to "take care" of the
problem and speak to the medical staff, but allegedly did not suggest filing a
grievance. The federal appeals court reinstated the lawsuit. When a jail
official invites noncompliance with a grievance procedure, the detainee is not
required to follow the procedure. Swisher v. Porter Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't.,
#13-3602, 769 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2014).
In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that
correctional officers used excessive force in restraining him, a federal
appeals court reversed a grant of summary judgment on claims against one
officer, as he had exhausted available administrative remedies against that
defendant. The law did not require the jury instruction given that it was
established that he had resisted the officers (because he was found guilty of
resisting in a disciplinary hearing), and the plaintiff was prejudiced on his
claims that were tried by the instruction given, so the judgment based on a
jury verdict for the remaining defendants was vacated. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,
#11-17911, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 21809 (9th Cir.).
A federal prisoner filed a lawsuit claiming that
he had been placed in administrative detention for 60 days in unlawful
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment for filing a claim under the
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), as well as a claim of failure to protect in
violation of the Eighth Amendment based on an assault on him by another
prisoner. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, based on
the plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
before suing, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
1997e(a), as well as a ruling that the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim was
barred by his decision to file a FTCA claim regarding the assault. A federal
appeals court vacated the trial court's ruling, holding that the failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies should be excused because of specific
allegations that one of the defendants intimidated him from pursuing a
grievance by a threat to transfer him to another facility where she said he
would be attacked and placing him in a special housing unit after he filed his
FTCA claim, and that the FTCA claim did not bar the Eighth Amendment claim
because the FTCA claim was dismissed by the trial court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and there was no judgment on the claim. Himmelreich v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, #13-4212, 766 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2014).
A prisoner claimed that a guard assaulted him by
putting a finger in his anus during a pat-down search. The guard contended that
the lawsuit should be dismissed as the prisoner failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The prisoner
asserted that he had filed a written grievance, but the trial court determined
that this was false, as none of the prisoner's more than 100 grievances related
to this alleged assault until one filed in August of 2009 which did not mention
the guard and which itself conceded that it was untimely and only filed
"for exhaustion purposes." The trial court ruled that the prisoner
had committed perjury about the grievance in his testimony, and thereby
forfeited his claim. The appeals court agreed, and ordered the prisoner to show
cause why his ability to file lawsuits as a pauper should not be revoked and
financial sanctions imposed. The prisoner, the court said, "has made
deceit the norm in his litigation. He is a frequent plaintiff, and many of his suits
entail dissembling." Rivera v. Drake, #14-1458, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17173
(7th Cir.).
A prisoner broke his hand in a fight. He claimed
that he filed an emergency grievance over an alleged inadequate medical
treatment for his injury, but never received any response. He then was
transferred to another facility, where he allegedly told an officer that he had
been authorized, at the first facility, to be assigned to a bottom bunk, but
was told to merely work things out with his cellmate. He claimed to have filed
a grievance over this too, but prison officials said that he had not. His
lawsuit was dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A federal appeals court upheld
the dismissal of the claim against the receiving officer at the second
facility, as the grievance allegedly filed had not mentioned that officer's
name nor contained information from which he could be identified. If the
defendants wanted to contest whether the emergency grievance at the first
facility was filed, an evidentiary hearing would be required. Roberts v. Neal,
#13-1335, 745 F.3d 232 (7th Cir. 2014).
A former Iowa prisoner claimed that the Parole Board
and State violated his constitutional rights based on a failure to conduct
annual in-person interviews as to whether to grant parole. This claim was
barred, a federal appeals court held, due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies before suing. Martin v. State of Iowa,
#12-3714, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9200 (8th Cir.).
A
prisoner who had been released from custody pursued a lawsuit asserting claims
for deliberate indifference to his mental health needs, violations of his right
to exercise his religion, and interference with his right of access to the
courts. A federal appeals court held that his claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief were moot as he was no longer in custody. His claim
concerning his mental health treatment boiled down with a mere disagreement
with the treatment provided, which was inadequate for a federal civil rights
claim. His claims concerning religious freedom and access to the courts were
properly dismissed, as he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies
concerning these issues, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Lastly, he was properly denied an appointed lawyer as he was unlikely to
succeed on the merits and was able to present the case adequately by himself.
Cano v. Taylor, #10-17030, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 703 (9th Cir.).
A California intermediate appeals court upheld
the dismissal of a lawsuit by an inmate complaining about the medical treatment
he received from an optometrist under contract to provide services to
prisoners. The prisoner failed to properly exhaust available administrative
remedies and no acceptable excuse for that was provided. The court rejected the
argument that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies did not apply
when the defendant was an independent contractor rather than a government
employee. Parthemore
v. Col, #C072611, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 984.
A paraplegic prisoner confined to a wheelchair
sued, asserting claims for 14 alleged incidents of excessive force against him,
denial of needed medical treatment, and the confiscation of his wheelchair,
which was then replaced with one that lacked needed leg rests. He claimed that,
with the supplied wheelchair, he was unable to shower or brush his teeth and
sometimes was left lying in his own excrement for day. A federal appeals court
upheld the dismissal of most of these claims for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies by filing and pursuing grievances, as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. The trial judge was entitled to make a factual
determination without the participation of a jury that the plaintiff was aware
of the prison's grievance procedure and was able to access it. The appeals
court found, however, that the prisoner did adequately exhaust administrative
remedies as to two specific incidents. While he did not appeal his grievances
concerning those two incidents, no appeal was available because no actual
decision on the grievances concerning those incidents was received. Small v. Whittick, #11-2378, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 17739 (3rd
Cir.).
An arrestee claimed that after he had been shot,
correctional officers cuffed both his ankle and his wrist to a hospital bed,
denied him medical treatment, and harmed him by restricting the movement of his
injured leg. He claimed that he therefore suffered permanent harm from a pulmonary
embolism which was life threatening. A federal appeals court ruled that summary
judgment had been improperly granted to the defendants on the federal claims on
the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, because the plaintiff
was not a prisoner at the time thev filed the lawsuit so that the exhaustion of
remedies provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply to him.
Lesesne v. Doe, #11-7120, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7098 (D.C. Cir.).
A detainee claimed that his classification into
the general population violated his right and constituted failure to protect
him from harm by other inmates. He also claimed that his serious medical needs
were deliberately ignored. Summary judgment was properly granted for the
defendant sheriff who showed that a grievance procedure existed and that the
plaintiff did not exhaust it before filing his lawsuit. The fact that the
detainee claimed to be unaware of the grievance procedure did not render it
"unavailable" for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, as
the detainee did not show it to be "unknowable." There was no
evidence that the jail concealed the grievance procedure or that he could not
have discovered it if he chose to pursue it. Albino v. Baca, #10-55702, 2012
U.S. App. Lexis 19871 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner's lawsuit concerning inadequate
medical care, unlawful retaliation, and harassment was dismissed for allegedly
failing to properly exhaust available administrative remedies. This was based
on prison officials' argument that his grievances could have been denied on the
basis of his failure to comply with mandatory time limits or complete the
grievance process, procedural issues. In fact, however, three of his grievances
for inadequate medical care were denied on their merits, thereby constituting
exhaustion of the available process for them. Hammett v. Cofield, #11-2937, 681
F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2012).
A prisoner sued over a prison policy that he
claimed limited the ability of Muslim inmates to perform regular congregational
prayers by limiting the time and space for it. A federal appeals court held
that the prisoner adequately exhausted his available administrative remedies by
pursuing a 2005 grievance against the policy as first set in place by an
earlier warden. Given that the same policy complained of was substantially
continued by the new warden in 2007, the earlier grievance had been sufficient
to put prison authorities on notice of the issues involved JJohnson v. Killian,
#10-4651, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 9874 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison
employees used excessive force in removing him from his cell, breaking his arm,
was properly dismissed for failure to properly exhaust available administrative
remedies. Prison rules required him to file an internal complaint over the
incident within 48 hours, which he did not do. The fact that he discussed his
injuries with prison personnel within 48 hours, or participated in a later
internal affairs investigation of the personnel involved in the incident did not
alter the result. Pavey v. Conley, #10-3878, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 23318 (7th
Cir.).
A prisoner who claimed that he was beaten
by correctional personnel in retaliation for having filed a grievance filed a
federal civil rights lawsuit over the beating without first filing a new
grievance over it. The defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed,
given the requirement in 42 U.S.C. Sec 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA) that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before
filing suit. The appeals court held that the prisoner could proceed with his
lawsuit if he could show that his fear of additional retaliation reasonably
deterred him from filing another grievance. The appeals court concluded that
when "a prison official inhibits an inmate from utilizing an
administrative process through threats or intimidation, that process can no
longer be said to be 'available.'" Tuckel v. Grover, #10-1353, 660
F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011).
A prisoner can go forward with his claim of inadequate
dental care, assuming that he has exhausted his administrative remedies through
the grievance process, which was not clear from the record. "A complete
denial of readily available treatment for a serious medical condition
constitutes deliberate indifference." The court therefore ordered further
proceedings on the exhaustion of remedies issue. Bingham v. Thomas, #09-10349,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 18293 (11th).
A prisoner filed a lawsuit alleging that a
bailiff at a courthouse assaulted him without provocation when he was
transported there for a proceeding. He did file a grievance concerning the
incident before suing, and the Department of Corrections submitted the matter
to Internal Affairs, where it was deemed not sustained. The prisoner's lawsuit
was filed when the matter was sent to Internal Affairs. A federal appeals court
upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit based on a failure to exhaust
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. First,
the prisoner was wrong in thinking that the exhaustion requirement did not
apply to claims of excessive force. Second, his administrative remedies were
not "exhausted" when the matter was sent to Internal Affairs for
investigation. Third, while the failure to exhaust administrative remedies does
not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction over a prisoner's claim, in that
the defendant in a lawsuit may choose to not raise the affirmative defense of
failure to exhaust such remedies, once the defense is raised, the court may not
ignore it. Worthem v. Boyle, #09-3043, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23752 (Unpub. 7th
Cir.).
In a lawsuit brought by a former jail detainee
against guards for allegedly allowing other prisoners to attack him, the
lawsuit should not have been dismissed for failure to meet the requirement
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(h) that available
administrative remedies be exhausted prior to pursuing litigation, since that
requirement only applies to current prisoners, not former prisoners. Talamantes
v. Levya, #06-55939, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17510 (9th Cir.).
Further proceedings were ordered in a case where
a federal trial court dismissed a prisoner's lawsuit over claims that prison
officials beat him during a lockdown, and then used threats to prevent him from
filing a grievance, based on his supposed failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). The prisoner did send a complaint to the Internal Affairs
division of the prison, but did not file an administrative remedy form, but the
appeals court noted that the trial court did not address evidence that the
prison's procedures converted all inmate complaints regarding the lockdown into
administrative remedy forms, or evidence that the prison interfered with his
use of the grievance system. Baez v. Fauver, #08-2777, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
13692 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Further proceedings were ordered on prisoner's
claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was continuously
restrained in ambulatory restraints that allegedly prevented him from lying
flat on his bed, bathing, or cleaning himself in a proper manner after using
the toilet. The trial court improperly ruled for the defendants based only on
written discovery materials, which failed to adequately address the subjective
mental state of the defendant correctional employees. There were also factual
issues as to whether the prisoner's alleged failure to timely file a grievance
concerning the issue was excused because his restraint, followed by his 30 days
of solitary confinement after his release from the restraints prevented him
from filing a grievance within 20 days. Womack v. Smith, No. 08-2229, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 2840 (3rd Cir. Unpub.).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement
that a plaintiff prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies on a
grievance before pursuing a lawsuit in court does not apply to a plaintiff who
is no longer confined. The plaintiff , who was no longer incarcerated at the
time he filed his lawsuit, therefore, despite not having exhausted
administrative remedies, could pursue his failure to protect lawsuit concerning
his beating by gang members after he was housed with them despite bearing the
tattoos of a rival gang he previously belonged to. Valdivia v. County of Santa
Cruz, Case Number 08-00916, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79089 (N.D. Cal.).
A prisoner's claims concerning being denied
access to religious materials and items needed to maintain his health should be
dismissed because he failed to obtain a "Director's Level Decision"
on his grievance, failing to exhaust his administrative remedies available
under California law. Wilson v. Wann, No. CIV S-06-1629, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
82318 (E.D. Ca.).
In a prisoner's lawsuit alleging that deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs caused him to suffer an
insulin-induced heart attack, further proceedings were ordered as to whether
the prisoner's filing of a medical request form was the equivalent of filing a
grievance, and, if it was, whether he should have or could have known how to
exhaust that grievance. Williams v. Marshall, No. 08-11311, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 22709 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
While an Oklahoma prisoner filed two separate
grievances concerning the alleged failure to protect him from an assault by
other prisoners, he failed to exhaust the administrative process on either of
them, and did not follow established procedures. As a result, the defendants
were entitled to summary judgment. Green v. Sirmons, No. 08-7032, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 23051 (10th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec 1997e of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming
that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by taking DNA
samples from him involuntarily after he was identified as a sex offender,
allegedly on the basis of false information. The prisoner failed to follow the
established grievance procedure as to his claims against a correctional
officer. The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the prisoner's
claim concerning incorrect information in his file stating that he had been
convicted of statutory rape, since the parameters of any due process right to
dispute and correct such information was not clearly established at the time at
issue. Walker v. James, No. 07-1327, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22403 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
Administrative appeals concerning an inmate's
grievances occurred after he had filed his federal habeas corpus petition, so
that he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing
his federal action. The court rejected the prisoner's argument that delays in
scheduling a rehearing that was ordered after one of his appeals showed that
the review process was "patently futile" or "unavailable,"
and that his failure to exhaust administrative remedies should therefore be
excused. Cartwright v. Outlaw, No. 07-40803, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20140 (Unpub.
5th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that he exhausted his
available administrative remedies before filing his federal civil rights
lawsuit. Evidence showed that he knew that 11 of his 12 administrative
grievances were rejected for procedural deficiencies, but he failed to correct
identified errors or pursue administrative appeals. He argued that he should be
excused from the exhaustion of remedies requirements because the grievance
process was made unavailable to him by defendants failing to visit his cell
area to accept and return grievances. Affidavits that he submitted in support
of that argument, however, were entitled to "little weight," when a
number of them contained typewritten signatures all dated on Friday December 1,
2006 at various locations throughout the county, which were all submitted by
him together on Monday, December 4, 2006, which would have been impossible
using the prison's mail system. This, the court stated, suggested that the
prisoner had created those signatures himself. Queen v. McIntire, No. 08-3058,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18580 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner who sued for injuries suffered from
his alleged deliberate exposure to an electrical shock could be excused from
the requirement that he exhaust available administrative remedies before filing
suit when he contended that he was unable to appeal the denial of his grievance
based on a warden's alleged retaliatory threat to transfer him if he did so. If
true, the warden thereby made it clear that the prisoner's overall condition
would become worse if he pursued his appeal, which "effectively" made
the administrative remedy unavailable. Further proceedings were ordered on
disputed factual issues. Turner v. Burnside, No. 07-14791, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
18510 (11th Cir.).
Federal magistrate finds that Congress, in
passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc, did not unequivocally waive state immunity from suits for
damages, so that an inmate's claim for damages against an official in his
official capacity was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and a claim for
money damages was not available under the Act against a prison official in his
individual capacity. On the prisoner's claim for alleged violation of his First
Amendment rights to religious freedom by denying his request to purchase an
ankh cross, however, the magistrate found that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e did not bar
punitive damages because punitive damages are not for mental or emotional
injury. Additionally, even if he were seeking damages for mental or emotional
injury, those damages would potentially be recoverable because Sec. 1997e does
not apply to First Amendment claims. Porter v. Caruso, No. 1:05-CV-562, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 64347 (W.D. Mich.).
While an inmate's claim concerning his allegedly
inadequate mental health treatment focused on his desire to be admitted to a
particular mental health facility, he was nevertheless required under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to exhaust all available
administrative procedures before filing suit, even if those procedures could
not provide him with the precise relief that he was seeking. He had an
opportunity to appeal a decision to transfer him out of the facility after a
determination that his conduct had become a "barrier" to his
participation in the program there, but failed to appeal. Additionally,
examining psychologists failed to find that he suffered from a mental illness.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants in his
lawsuit. Gruenberg v. Lundquist, No. 08-1251, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18216
(Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A prisoner is not entitled to a jury trial under
the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on any genuine factual issue
concerning a defense of failing to exhaust available administrative remedies as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e). In
the prisoner's lawsuit claiming that an officer had used excessive force
against him, the defendants claimed that he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies because he hadn't filed a timely grievance with prison
authorities. The prisoner claimed that he had been unable to exhaust such
remedies since he was left-handed and he had a broken left arm, so that he
could not prepare the grievance himself. The appeals court held that he was not
entitled to a jury trial right to that issue, overturning a trial court
decision to the contrary. Pavey v. Conley, No. 07-1426, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
11963 (7th Cir.). Editor's Note: The only other federal appeals court to
address the issue also rejected the argument that there was a right to a jury
trial when there are genuine issues of material fact concerning a prisoner's
compliance with the duty to exhaust available administrative remedies before
filing suit. Wyatt v. Terhune, #00-16568, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003).
Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his rights were
violated by placing him in a cell with a defective ceiling that fell and
injured him was properly rejected because of his failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(1). His relocation to another cell and his alleged lack of
knowledge of the names of the officers he claimed to have told about the
problems with the ceiling did not excuse his failure to comply with a prison's
48-hour deadline for reporting the incident. Prisoners must comply with prison
grievance rules, including time limitations, and there was no showing that he
tried to learn the names of the correctional officers during the 48-hour
period, or that he requested that the prison waive the 48-hour rule. Whitener
v. Buss, No. 07-1490, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5799 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner who failed to filed an intermediate
appeal of the denial of his grievance in a timely manner, as required by prison
grievance rules, failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies,
so that prison officials were entitled to summary judgment in his lawsuit over
the alleged seizing of legal materials from his cell. Rohn v. Beard, No.
07-4833, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5179 (3rd Cir.).
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Similar State Statutes
A prisoner's lawsuit claimed that, after he filed
a court action to require prison employees to provide him access to the law
library, he was subjected to retaliation in the form of a
"fabricated" disciplinary charge, and found guilty of the violation.
The court found that the prisoner's claim was frivolous, and that he failed to
show facts to support a claim for unlawful retaliation. The prisoner was also
found to be an "abusive litigator" with at least "three
strikes" under a Pennsylvania state statute--three previously dismissed
frivolous lawsuits. The court revoked the prisoner's status as someone able to
proceed in the case as a pauper, and also dismissed his appeal. Bailey v.
Miller, No. 1688 C.D. 2007, 2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 95.
Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he was beaten by
prison officials during a fight involving another inmate and a correctional
officer was properly dismissed for failing to exhaust available administrative
remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act. The result was not altered by the prisoner's claim that he was in
lock-down isolation until six days after the fight, when there were procedures
for late grievances, but only if a prisoner made a request to file a grievance
late and showed good cause. The prisoner, having never followed those
procedures, was not excused from the normal grievance requirements, and he also
failed to appeal the denial of his grievances. The court also rejected an equal
protection challenge to the exhaustion of remedies requirement. Mason v.
Bridger, No. 07-14206, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 573 (11th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) before filing a lawsuit concerning alleged denial of his
right of access to the law library, alleged discipline imposed for asserting
that right, and "involuntary servitude" and discipline imposed for
not reporting to work, as well as a complaint about prison food being
"poor." The prisoner himself admitted that he had not appealed his
grievances after presenting them to the grievance committee, and had also
failed to appeal his disciplinary claim after presenting it to the warden, as
was possible under a prison operating procedure. Anderson v. Donald, No.
06-16322, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 569 (11th Cir.).
Former inmate failed to exhaust grievance
procedures during his incarcerations concerning his complaints about
overcrowding and other allegedly unsanitary jail conditions he was aware of,
and therefore could not pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit, based on the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The former inmate could, however, still pursue claims concerning injuries he
did not discover until after he was released, including medical conditions,
without attempting to exhaust administrative remedies. As a former prisoner,
the jail's grievance procedure was no longer available to him, so any
"exhaustion" requirement was excused. Allard v. Anderson, No.
05-10019, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29932 (5th Cir.).
HIV positive prisoner could not pursue his
federal civil rights lawsuit over the alleged denial of his daily medication
when he failed to file any formal grievance. His claim that he sent letters
complaining to the nurse administrator and the superintendent was insufficient
to fulfill the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a) that he exhaust available administrative remedies. Murray v. Prison
Health Services, No. 06 Civ 15426, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74719 (S.D.N.Y.).
A federal civil detainee sufficiently presented a
claim that prison employees acted with deliberate indifference to his mental
health needs by denying him needed psychiatric treatment despite his
deteriorating condition, which went beyond mere negligence in care. Because he
was a civil detainee, and not a prisoner, he was not required to exhaust
available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Additionally, as a civil detainee, his claims were
analyzed under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, rather than under
the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The
detainee was confined under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246(a), providing for the
hospitalization (and continued detention) of a person in the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons when their sentence is about to expire or when criminal
charges against them have been dismissed on the basis of their mental
condition, if they suffer from a mental disease or defect as a result of which
their release would create a "substantial risk of bodily harm to another
persons or serious damage to property of another." Hicks v. James, No.
06-6786, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28251 (4th Cir.).
In a lawsuit in which a prisoner claimed that he
was beaten on two occasions by correctional officers, the first claim against
the officers was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), and a verdict in favor of the officers on the second
beating claim was upheld. The trial court did not act erroneously in failing to
give an "assault and battery" instruction separate from the
"cruel and unusual punishment" instruction given, as the prisoner did
not ask for his own instruction or present an argument as to why the
instruction given was allegedly defective. Finally, a directed verdict in favor
of a prison superintendent was properly decided as there could be no
supervisory liability when there was no finding of a constitutional violation
by the officers. Matthews v. Cordeiro, No. 05-1041, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28613
(1st Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he was denied two
injections prescribed for treatment of syphilis. In the trial court, the case
was dismissed based on the representation by correctional officials that the
prisoner had only filed one grievance concerning medical treatment, but which
did not raise the question of the injections. On appeal, the state located
prison records showing that the prisoner had, in fact, filed another grievance concerning
the failure to give him the injections, but argued that the prisoner did not
complete the administrative process for that grievance. The appeals court ruled
that the defendants were barred from asserting failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies on that claim, since the late disclosure of the
grievance on the injections did not allow the trial court to adequately address
that issue. Cunningham v. Dept. of Correctional Services, No. 05-5072, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 26608 (2nd Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that he was denied his
constitutional right of access to the courts because of the failure to process
his administrative grievances was frivolous. The prisoner argued that this was
the case because he was required to exhaust available administrative remedies
before pursuing a lawsuit over his claims. The appeals court noted that the
trial court had assumed that the prisoner had exhausted available
administrative remedies because his grievances had not been processed within
the required time limits, so that access to the courts was not interfered with.
Mahogany v. Miller, #06-30927, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24909 (5th Cir.).
Prisoners seeking to assert claims under the
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act for alleged
disability discrimination by prison officials (failure to accommodate and treat
his mental illness) are required by The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to
exhaust available administrative remedies before proceeding with a
lawsuit. In this case, the prisoner failed to exhaust such remedies
before filing his lawsuit, which must, therefore, be dismissed. The court also
noted, however, that because the prisoner had, in the meantime, proceeded to
exhaust those administrative remedies, he could now file a new lawsuit based on
his claims if he wanted. O'Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., No. 06-15972 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 21170 (9th Cir.).
Dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit for alleged
failure to exhaust available administrative remedies was improper when the prisoner
presented evidence that prison staff members were ignoring his initial
grievance forms concerning religious harassment, and refused to give him forms
necessary to continue the process of pursuing administrative remedies. Based on
these allegations, the trial court was required to make a factual finding as to
whether the prison grievance process was actually "available" to the
plaintiff prisoner. Nixon v. Sanders, No. 06-1013, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19698
(8th Cir.).
Further proceedings ordered to determine whether
threats plaintiff prisoner claimed to have received from one of the defendants
rendered the prison grievance procedures unavailable to him, or whether the
existence of those threats barred the defendants from using the prisoner's failure
to exhaust those remedies as an affirmative defense to his claim of deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. Macias v. Zenk, No. 04-6131,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17795 (2nd Cir.).
A grievance which was not filed in a timely
manner could not be the basis for proper exhaustion of available administrative
remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e before filing a federal civil
rights lawsuit. The prisoner did not show that he had properly exhausted his
administrative remedies concerning alleged discrimination against him based on
his religion. Davison v. Maclean, No. 06-12755, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37449
(E.D. Mich.).
A prisoner's failure to hire an expert witness to
show that his medical needs, arising from his heart condition, were "serious"
did not require summary judgment for the defendants in a lawsuit for alleged
deliberate indifference to his condition and delay in providing him with
medication. The court ruled that a lay person would know that medical needs in
connection with such a heart condition were serious. Bosco v. C.F.G. Health
Systems, NO. 04-CV-3517, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44314 (D.N.J.).
A federal trial judge acted erroneously in
dismissing all claims against all defendants when only one defendant had
asserted that the prisoner had failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the
claims against him. Hobbs v. Foreman, No. 06-3427, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13568
(8th Cir.).
Federal appeals court reverses dismissal of
prisoner's claims against certain prison officials who allegedly interfered
with his receipt of medications prescribed for his mental illness and diabetes.
Based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock, #05-7058, 127 S.
Ct. 910 (2007), the prisoner was not required to "plead and prove"
that he had exhausted all available administrative remedies, so the dismissal
of the lawsuit on that basis was improper. The appeals court did, however,
uphold the dismissal of claims against one official whose involvement merely
amounted to denying the prisoner's grievances over the alleged interference
with receipt of the medication, as this did not show participation in the
alleged violation of the prisoner's rights. Larson v. Meek, No. 04-1169, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 14144 (10th Cir.).
Inmate who completed only one step of a
multi-step grievance process by the time he filed his federal civil rights
lawsuit complaining about exposure to another inmate's second-hand cigarette
smoke failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, so that the dismissal of his lawsuit was proper.
Muhammad v. Beard, No. 06-4897, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12164 (3rd Cir.).
The fact that a prisoner claimed ignorance of
rules requiring him to file a step two grievance after his first step grievance
had been referred to the Texas Department of Justice-Correctional Institutions
Division did not excuse his failure to do so. Accordingly, he failed to exhaust
his available administrative remedies concerning alleged verbal abuse and threats
by correctional officers. Aguirre v. Dyer, No. 05-41345, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
12258 (5th Cir.).
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Jones v. Bock, 05-7058, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007), the plaintiff prisoner did not
have to show in his federal civil rights complaint that he had administratively
exhausted his claims concerning alleged violations of his First and Eighth
Amendment rights. Instead, the defendants had the burden of raising the alleged
failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as an affirmative defense
in their response to his complaint. Additionally, the prisoner was free to
proceed on claims on which he had exhausted available administrative remedies,
even if he had not done so on other claims. The appeals court therefore vacated
the trial courts dismissal of the lawsuit in its entirety and ordered further
proceedings in accordance with Jones v. Bock. Milligan v. Reed, No. 07-1024,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11739 (10th Cir.).
Prisoner did not have the burden of proving that
he had exhausted available administrative remedies on his claim that he was
exposed to harmful secondhand tobacco smoke, and did state that he filed a
grievance concerning the issue, as well as explaining why he could not provide
documentation on that grievance. His claim was therefore improperly dismissed.
Roberts v. Barreras, No. 05-2373, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8631 (10th Cir.).
When the rejection of a prisoner's grievance did
not include an explanation of his appeal right, as required by prison regulations,
prison officials failed to meet their burden of showing that the prisoner did
not exhaust available administrative remedies, since this denied him access to
the grievance process. The court therefore rejected a motion by prison
officials to dismiss the prisoner's lawsuit allegedly that they failed to
protect him from an attack by other prisoners. Tabarez v. Butler, No. CIV
S-04-0360, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23642 (E.D. Cal.).
In a federal civil rights lawsuit under Bivens,
when a trial court cannot clearly conclude from the complaint that the
plaintiff prisoner has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies,
or that he lacks a valid excuse for failing to do so, the complaint should not
be dismissed without providing the plaintiff with an opportunity to address the
issue. Aquilar-Avellaveda v. Terrell, No. 06-3334, 478 F.3d 1223 (10th
Cir. 2007).
Prisoner failed to show that he had exhausted
available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) when
the record established that he did not follow the prison's grievance procedures
as set forth in an inmate handbook. Kinlaw v. Foster, No. 06-3446, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 6570 (3rd Cir.).
A federal trial court acted erroneously in
dismissing all of a prisoner's claims after it determined that he had exhausted
available administrative remedies as to only one of them. Appeals court rules,
however, that the claim on which the prisoner exhausted the grievance
procedure, denial of his right of access to the courts, was frivolous, since
his constitutional right of access to the courts did not include a requirement
that he be provided with the capacity to pursue a lawsuit for wrongful
discharge. Stephens v. Guilfoyle, No. 06-6149, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3388 (10th
Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner who did not specify in his grievance a
particular person allegedly responsible for his grievances, and did not file
his grievance against any defendant later named in his federal civil rights
lawsuit failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), so that the lawsuit should be dismissed. Additionally,
the grievance filed only raised one of the 8 claims that he later asserted in
his lawsuit. Myers v. Metro Sheriff's Office, No. 3:07-cv-00015, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 626 (M.D. Tenn.). [N/R]
Interpreting the scope of the "exhaustion of
remedies" requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, (PLRA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that: (a) Failure
to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, and inmates are not
required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their
complaints--instead, defendant prison officials must specifically raise the
failure to do so as a defense; (b) Exhaustion is not per se inadequate under
the PLRA when an individual later sued was not named in the grievance, and the
applicable procedural rules that a prisoner must properly exhaust are not
defined by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself; and (c) The
PLRA does not require dismissal of the entire complaint when a prisoner has
failed to exhaust some, but not all, of the claims included in the complaint.
Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058, 05-7142, 2007 U.S. Lexis 1325. [N/R]
Based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058, 2007 U.S. Lexis 1325, a federal trial court acted
erroneously in dismissing the entirety of a lawsuit for failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies on the basis of the plaintiff inmate's
failure to plead that he had exhausted such remedies on each of his claims or
with respect to each named defendant. Fisher v. Primstaller, No. 05-1026, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 2365 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner who failed to show that he fully
exhausted all available administrative remedies on one of his claims, that
correctional officials did not give indigent inmates enough money to pay
postage on legal documents, could not pursue any of the claims in his federal
civil rights lawsuit. Amos v. Werholtz, No. 06-3258, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30625
(10th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he was sexually
assaulted by a correctional officer was properly dismissed for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e when he filed a request to pursue an
administrative remedy procedure but did so in an untimely manner. Johnson v.
State of Louisiana, No. 06-30302, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26402 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
As long as a prisoner's grievance gives officials
sufficient information to investigate his complaint, the prisoner's failure to
identify the specific employee he claims violated his rights did not violate
the requirement that he exhaust available administrative remedies. In this
case, regulations concerning such grievances said nothing about any requirement
to identify specific employees in such grievances. Kikumura v. Osagie, No.
04-1249, 461 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
When an inmate's federal civil rights lawsuit
contained both claims on which he had exhausted available administrative
remedies, and claim on which he had not, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit holds that the lawsuit should be dismissed in its entirety.
Rinard v. Luoma, No. 05-1150, 440 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
In a prisoner's federal lawsuit seeking to put
forth several claims against prison officials based on multiple prison
grievances, the plaintiff was required to have exhausted each claim against
each of the named defendants during the processing of at least one of the
grievances. Abdul-Muhammad v. Kempker, No. 05-1872, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20455
(8th Cir.). [N/R]
The "routine" dismissal of a lawsuit
over prison conditions because of the failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies is not a "strike" for purposes of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act's "three strikes" rule. Green v. Young, No.
04-7252, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 18685 (4th Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
The fact that the plaintiff prisoner could not
have obtained money damages through the administrative grievance procedure on
his claim that prison officials provided him with inadequate medical care did
not excuse his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to
filing a federal civil rights lawsuit as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a).
Additionally, when there was no evidence that prison officials interfered with
his access to the administrative appeals process, he was not excused from
pursuing administrative appeals from his initial grievance, even if he was
confused about what to do after being transferred to another facility. Hill v.
Chalanor, No. 9:01CV0018, 419 F. Supp. 2d 255 (N.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to properly exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit concerning an alleged assault
on him by several correctional officers. The prisoner allegedly knew that the
grievance procedure was the proper place to complain about this, and filed an
initial grievance but failed to appeal its denial. He raised the issue also in
an appeal of a disciplinary action against him, but was told that disciplinary
proceedings and their appeals were not the proper place to pursue that claim.
Reynoso v. Swezey, No. 99-CV-6368, 423 F. Supp. 2d 73 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
Dismissal of a prisoner's federal civil rights
lawsuit was a proper sanction for his submission of a falsified document he
created which contained information that he could not possibly have known at
the time he represented it was prepared. The prisoner submitted the document to
try to show that he had properly exhausted available administrative remedies.
Campos v. Correction Officer Smith, No. 04-CV-60541, 418 F. Supp. 2d 277
(W.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court rules that prisoners are
required, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, to properly exhaust available
administrative remedies for their grievances before pursuing federal lawsuits
over prison conditions, including complying with procedural rules, such as
deadlines for grievance filing. Woodford v. Ngo, No. 05-416, 2006 U.S. Lexis
4891. [2006 JB Aug]
Federal trial court properly granted summary
judgment to prison officials on the basis of plaintiff prisoner's failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). While the prisoner filed a grievance, he
failed to direct it to the proper facility even though he was informed of the
policies concerning where grievances should be sent. Additionally, the prisoner
provided no justification for why he delayed filing his grievance for a
three-year period. Smith v. Collins, No. 05-1535, #05-1535, 167 Fed. Appx. 830
(2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
A prisoner must exhaust prison grievance
procedures before "submitting any papers" to a federal court, and
even if he subsequently exhausted administrative remedies by the time the court
approved his application to proceed as a pauper, a complaint sent to the court
before exhaustion should be dismissed, federal appeals court rules. Vaden v.
Summerhill, No. 05-15650, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13921 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Legally blind prisoner failed to show that he
exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing suit, as required
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Plaintiff, therefore, could not proceed with his
lawsuit claiming that correctional officers acted with deliberate indifference
in failing to place him in a single-occupancy cell after a cellmate allegedly
assaulted him, resulting in his subsequent poisoning. Fry v. Al-Abduljalil, No.
05-1179, 164 Fed. Appx. 788 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his civil rights
were violated by requiring him to work for less than minimum wage and that he
was unlawfully retaliated against for filing grievances was properly dismissed
based on his failure to plead, in his complaint, that he had exhausted his
available administrative remedies. Davis v. Simmons, No. 05-3233, 165 Fed.
Appx. 687 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Requirement, under Prison Litigation Reform Act,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), that a prisoner exhaust available administrative
remedies prior to filing a federal civil rights lawsuit applies to prisoners
held in a privately-run state prison. Federal appeals court upholds dismissal,
without prejudice, of a prisoner's claim that he had been denied needed medical
treatment, based on his failure to complete all of a privately-run prison's
four-step grievance procedure. Bias v. Cornell Corrections, Inc., No. 04-6353,
159 Fed. Appx. 868 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit claiming
that prison's non-smoking policy was unconstitutional was barred by his failure
to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit, as required
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Harmon v.
Gallegos, No. 05-3209, 158 Fed. Appx. 87 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Requirement that prisoner's exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit over prison conditions applies
to a claim by a prisoner in a privately run prisoner over the alleged
confiscation of several magazines by a prison employee. Roles v. Maddox, No.
04-35280, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5037 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Apr]
A federal prisoner's failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e) prior to filing
a lawsuit was excused because of the prison's failure to inform him of a new
appeals procedure. His lawsuit seeking $113.40 in damages for personal property
allegedly lost during a transfer to a new facility, therefore, rather than
being dismissed, would merely be stayed while the prisoner continued with the
administrative appeals process. Campbell v. Chaves, #04-78, 402 F. Supp. 2d
1101 (D. Ariz. 2005). [N/R]
While prisoner filed grievances concerning his
claim that he was illegally terminated from his kitchen work assignment on the
basis of his race, he failed to show that he appealed his grievance to the
Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and therefore did not
exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required
by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Lyons v. Trinity Services Group, Inc., No. 02-23142,
601 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds injunction
requiring the provision of both general educational services and special
educational services for school age inmates incarcerated in New York City
jails, based on the failure to comply with federal law. Portions of the
injunction based on alleged violations of state law, the court held, were
beyond the power of the federal trial court. City defendants had previously
waived a defense of failure to exhaust available administrative remedies by
stating that no such remedies were applicable to the claims made in the class
action lawsuit. Handberry v. Thompson, No. 03-0047, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1062
(2d Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
Prisoner failed to show that he had exhausted
available administrative remedies prior to filing his civil rights lawsuit
against his supervisors in the prison sign shop for allegedly failing to
provide him with adequate ventilation, training, and equipment. While he
asserted that his step three grievance had not been answered by prison
officials, he failed to show that prison officials could not still make a
timely response to the step three grievance. Blay v. Reilly, No. 04-1347, 152
Fed. Appx. 747 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Requirement, under Prison Litigation Reform Act,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e)(a) that available administrative remedies be exhausted
before a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison conditions is filed did not
apply to a lawsuit by relatives of a prisoner who died while incarcerated, as
they were not prisoners, and the prisoner, at the time the lawsuit was filed,
was no longer "confined." Relatives stated a possible claim for
deliberate indifference to the medical and security needs of the deceased
prisoner, who they alleged was forcibly intoxicated with morphine by fellow
prisoners, with the drug causing his death by overdose. Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez,
No. CIV. 03-2326, 397 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D. Puerto Rico. 2005). [N/R]
Diabetic prisoners who allegedly suffered
amputations because of failure to receive adequate medical care for their
illness were barred from pursuing federal civil rights claims when they failed
to use a prison's formal grievance procedure to complain about their treatment.
Their contention that medical personnel had encouraged them to instead pursue
any complaints directly with them was no excuse when no one prevented them from
using the grievance procedure. Gibson v. Weber, No. 04-3932, 431 F.3d 339 (8th
Cir. 2005). [2006 JB Feb]
A prisoner's participation in an internal affairs
investigation concerning his alleged beating by correctional officers did not
substitute for the requirement that the prisoner exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing a lawsuit for damages. Panaro v. City
of N. Las Vegas, No. 04-15750, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 28080 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB
Feb]
Prisoner failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, before filing his
federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated because he
was ordered to clean a prison dumpster of caustic chemicals without adequate
protective clothing. Because he only exhausted his remedies concerning alleged
inadequate medical care for his injuries arising after the incident, his Eighth
Amendment claim concerning the order itself was properly dismissed. Mathews v.
Colorado Dept. of Corrections, No. 05-1010, 146 Fed. Appx. 988 (10th Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit concerning alleged inadequate
medical care was not barred by failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies when court found that he had no remedies available to exhaust. Prisoner's
complaint was that prison medical personnel failed to arrange, in a timely
manner, for him to be treated by specialists at a hospital where he was
ultimately diagnosed as suffering from throat cancer. Appealing the denial of
his administrative grievance, the court found, would not have provided him with
any relief, since by the time the right to appeal existed, he had already been
transferred, and had already suffered the harm. Gabby v. Meyer, #04-C0476, 390
F. Supp. 2d 801 (E.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
While prisoner filed an administrative grievance
concerning an alleged assault on him by correctional officers, he failed to
follow prison procedures for appealing the denial of that grievance, requiring
dismissal of his lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Jacobs v. Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, No. 05-1455, 148 Fed. Appx. 107 (3rd Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Prison medical director was entitled to dismissal
of inmate's federal civil rights lawsuit concerning treatment for old bullet
wounds which resulted in four bullets lodged in his body, based on prisoner's
failure to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing litigation. Burrell
v. Powers, No. 04-3745, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26902 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Jan]
Prisoner's lawsuit, claiming that he contracted
histoplasmosis, a fungal disease affecting the lungs, from pigeon and bat
droppings at prison, was properly dismissed without prejudice when he failed to
specify the claims he asserted in prior administrative hearings, based on the
requirement, in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, that he
exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing litigation. Clayton
v. U.S. Depart. of Justice, No. 04-5536, 136 Fed. Appx. 840 (6th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
A parole violator who was confined at a New York
state drug treatment campus was a "prisoner" subject to the
requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e,
requiring him to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a
federal civil rights lawsuit against the county, sheriff, and correctional
officers. Summary judgment was therefore properly granted to the defendants
based on his failure to comply with this requirement before pursuing his
lawsuit. Ruggiero v. County of Orange, No. 03 CIV. 1396, 386 F. Supp. 2d 434
(S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that it is not
legally required that trial court dismiss a prisoner's entire complaint when it
contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Judge should instead dismiss
only the claims on which the prisoner has not exhausted available
administrative remedies. Lira v. Herrera, No. 02-16325, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis
23550 (9th Cir.). [2005 JB Dec]
Jail detainee was excused from having to exhaust
jail grievance procedures before suing for alleged denial of medical care and
treatment for her broken arm, when she presented evidence that the jail had a
"flat rule" that complaints concerning medical treatment were
"not grievable." Rancher v. Franklin County, Ky., No. 04-5220, 122
Fed. Appx. 240 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
Pretrial detainee failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, before filing his
civil rights lawsuit claiming that county jail employees failed to adequately
protect him from assault by fellow prisoners. While he filed administrative
grievances, he admitted that he did not appeal their denials, and, based on
that admission, the alleged failure to provide him with written denials of his
grievances did not excuse his failure to appeal. Truly v. Sheahan, No. 04-2280,
135 Fed. Appx. 869 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to sufficiently exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights lawsuit challenging
the denial of his request for surgery for a problem with his arm and the denial
of his request for a single-occupancy cell. While the prisoner filed grievances
and pursued appeals, he failed to name any of the defendants named in his
federal civil rights lawsuit in his grievances. Williams v. Overton, No.
03-2507, 136 Fed Appx. 859 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Appeals court orders further proceedings to
determine whether prisoner, in filing three inmate request forms asking for a
change of cell to get away from a cellmate who allegedly threatened him,
sufficiently exhausted available administrative remedies to allow him to
proceed with a federal civil rights lawsuit for alleged failure to protect him
after the cellmate allegedly attacked him and he was moved to a different cell.
Braham v. Armstrong, 03-0153, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21085 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB
Nov]
While prisoner's partial paralysis following a
stroke might have justified his failure to file a grievance concerning his
medical treatment within fourteen days as required by prison rules, he failed
to explain why he waited almost two years before filing a grievance. His
federal civil rights lawsuit, therefore, was properly dismissed for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. Williams v. Comstock, 04-6453, 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 21086 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB Nov]
Further proceedings were required to determine
whether prisoner's actions in sending multiple letters and request forms to
prison officials was sufficient to exhaust available administrative remedies as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, allowing
him to proceed with his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that prison
officials unconstitutionally failed to protect him from violent assault by
another prisoner. Aponte v. Armstrong, #03-0186, 137 Fed. Appx. 414 (2nd Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Prisoner adequately showed that he exhausted
available administrative remedies before filing his federal civil rights
lawsuit concerning various conditions of his confinement when the defendant
prison officials did not dispute his claim that they failed to respond to the
grievances he filed and failed to inform him of the grievance procedures.
Turner v. Huston, No. 04-1850, 137 Fed. Appx. 880 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that his rights were violated
when prison officials had him undergo a 2-hour transport to another prison's
medical facility, rather than being taken to a local hospital for treatment was
a lawsuit about prison conditions subject to the exhaustion of remedies
requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. In this
case the prisoner failed to file a grievance concerning the incident and that
failure was not excused by his claim that his blood sugar level was "out of
control" at the time of the incident. McCray v. First State Medical
System, No. CIV. 04-173, 379 F. Supp. 2d 635 (D. Del. 2005). [N/R]
While prisoner did not exhaust his available
administrative remedies concerning some of his claims against certain defendants,
he would be allowed to proceed with the claims on which he had done so. The
trial court reached this decision, rejecting the "total exhaustion"
rule recently adopted by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in Jones Bey v. Johnson, No. 032331, 407 F.3d 801 (6th Cir. 2005) The
trial court found that this panel's decision was "void" under Sixth
Circuit law because there was also a prior applicable 6th Circuit panel
decision in Hartsfield v. Vidor, No. 99a0406, 199 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 1999),
holding that in a prisoner's civil rights lawsuit, unexhausted claims should be
dismissed without prejudice, and exhausted claims should be allowed to proceed.
The trial court found that, in light of these two conflicting panel decisions,
the earlier decision remained controlling until overturned by the entire Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a decision of the United States
Supreme Court. Garner v. Unknown Napel, No. 2:05-CV-79, 374 F. Supp. 2d 582
(W.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
Officer accused of using excessive force against
prisoner who assaulted him was not entitled to dismissal of the lawsuit based
on the prisoner's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
The prisoner filed a grievance concerning the officer's action, and allegedly
failed to appeal further since there was never any response to his grievance.
Brengettcy v. Horton, No. 03-3813, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19362 (7th Cir.). [2005
JB Oct]
A prisoner's "untimely" administrative
grievance was insufficient to satisfy the requirement under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, that available administrative
remedies be exhausted before filing suit. Appeals court orders prisoner's
lawsuit, asserting claims for alleged exposure to hazardous chemicals, and
harassment and retaliation by prison officials, dismissed. Johnson v. Meadows,
No. 03-15636, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15233 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to adequately exhaust available
administrative remedies when he filed written grievances concerning his claims
for disciplinary parole consideration and retaliation, but failed to seek final
administrative review of these grievances. Jones v. Maher, No. 04-3993, 131
Fed. Appx. 813 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit had to be dismissed without
prejudice in its entirety when he failed to file grievances concerning his
claims of denial of medical assistance, and filed his lawsuit before exhausting
his available administrative remedies on his claim that he was assaulted by a
correctional officer. Prisoners are required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, the court
rules, to totally exhaust available administrative remedies on all claims
contained in their lawsuit before filing suit, under the principles stated in
Bey v. Johnson, No. 03-2331, 407 F.3d 801 (6th Cir. 2005). Sanchez-Ramos v.
Sniezek, No. 4:05CV780, 370 F. Supp. 2d 652 (N.D. Ohio 2005). [N/R]
Lawsuit challenging the conditions of inmate's
confinement at two federal facilities was properly dismissed because he failed
to exhaust available administrative remedies. Patel v. Fleming, No. 04-6266,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 14654 (10th Cir.) [2005 JB Sep]
Prisoner did not fail to properly exhaust
available administrative remedies on religious freedom claim. While the issue
of the alleged untimeliness of his grievance was raised in the administrative
process, correctional officials principally rejected his grievance on its
merits. Conyers v. Abitz, No. 04-1630, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15130 (7th Cir.).
[2005 JB Sep]
Trial court improperly failed to assess whether
prisoner's letters of complaint and appeals of misbehavior reports filed
against him were adequate to put prison on notice for purposes of determining
whether he exhausted administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e prior to filing lawsuit, or whether special circumstances justified his
failure to file a formal grievance. Boddie v. Bradley, No. 02-0135, 129 Fed.
Appx. 658 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit against federal prison dentists
for failure to provide him with needed treatment was properly dismissed for
failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of
Prisons, No. 03-3361, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 13144 (10th Cir.). [2005
JB Aug]
Former prisoner did not have to plead, in his
complaint, that he had exhausted his available administrative remedies before
filing his lawsuit claiming that there was deliberate indifference to his
urgent medical needs while he was confined for seven hours in the local jail.
Appeals court finds that, as a former prisoner, the plaintiff was not subject
to the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(h), and that, even if he was, he was under no obligation to plead
exhaustion in his complaint, since the Act's exhaustion requirement is an
"affirmative defense that the defendant has the burden to plead and to
prove." Nerness v. Johnson, No. 04-2679, 401 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
A prisoner is not required to allege, in his complaint,
that he has exhausted all available administrative remedies, so that the
dismissal of a lawsuit on that basis, without giving the prisoner a chance to
respond concerning the issue, was improper. Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health Serv.,
No. 04-6885, 407 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Jul]
Federal appeals court rules that prisoner's
lawsuit, in its entirety, should be dismissed when he failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies on any of its claims. Jones Bey v. Johnson,
No. 03-2331 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 7166 (6th Cir). [2005 JB Jul]
Special circumstances justified the plaintiff
prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies concerning his claim
against a prison dentist for deliberate indifference when he did not learn,
until he had been transferred to another facility, that his pain resulted from
a foreign object and reactive lesion in the part of his mouth from which a
dentist had extracted a tooth. Borges v. Admin. for Strong Mem. Hosp.,
#99-CV-6351, 337 F.Supp.2d 424, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20595 (W.D.N.Y. 2004);
prior decis. at 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18596. [N/R]
Prisoner failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, on his claim that
a correctional officer confiscated his contact lenses because he is homosexual.
While he pursued grievances concerning the contact lenses, he failed to assert
in those grievances that he was a homosexual or that his sexual orientation was
related to the reason why the officer took the actions against him. Goldsmith
v. White, No. 5:04cv72, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (N.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, on his claim that
a correctional officer was engaged in racial discrimination in seizing his
property purchased in the prison commissary. While the prisoner prepared a
number of statements about the incident he circulated to prison officials, they
were never property submitted to the warden or other officials as required by
regulations. Additionally, the statements circulated merely summarized the
incident without making any claim of racial discrimination. The prisoner's
lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. Smith v. Rudicel, No. 04-3462, 123
Fed. Appx. 906 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit
challenging his discipline as a violation of his First Amendment rights should
not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies. Federal appeals court rules that he did exhaust his administrative
remedies when his appeal of his denied grievance was rejected as untimely. The
Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement, the court holds, does
not bar consideration of a prisoner's claims when his administrative appeal was
denied on state law procedural grounds. Ngo v. Woodford, No. 03-16042, 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 4809 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
Despite a prisoner's "poor English" and
"limited education," his failure to comply in a timely manner with
the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e that
he exhaust available administrative remedies would not be waived, since his
previous federal civil rights lawsuit had been dismissed for the same reason,
and his access to the grievance appeals process had not been obstructed. A
prisoner, the court ruled, cannot attempt to circumvent the requirement in the
Act that they exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit
by simply waiting to bring their lawsuit until their administrative remedies
are time-barred. Martinez v. Williams, No. 04 CIV.1938, 349 F. Supp. 2d 677
(S.D.N.Y. 2004).[N/R]
California prisoner complied with the requirement
that he exhaust available administrative remedies by filing provided form
describing his alleged disability of visual impairment and the accommodations
he requested. His failure to identify specific prison employees as allegedly
responsible for his grievances did not alter the result when the form supplied
by the state did not ask for particular individuals to be named. Butler v.
Adams, No. 04-15478, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1898 (9th Cir. 2005) [2005
JB Apr]
Colorado state prisoners who sued to challenge
their conditions of confinement in the county jail they were transferred to
could not pursue their claims when they had failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). The record in the case showed that the prisoners failed
to file grievances in the jail. This failure was not excused by the initial
refusal of jail officials to furnish them with jail grievance forms because
they were state prisoners, when the grievance forms were eventually provided.
Garcia v. Taylor, No. 03-1361, 113 Fed. Appx. 857 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit over the alleged unauthorized
deduction of $150 from his inmate trust account was properly dismissed when he
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Buhl v. United States,
117 Fed. Appx. 39 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal trial court could exercise its discretion
to allow plaintiff prisoner to proceed on a claim against one doctor asserting
inadequate medical treatment on which administrative remedies had been
exhausted, while dismissing other claims against other defendants against whom
administrative remedies had not been exhausted. The exhaustion of remedies
provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, does not
require the court to apply a "complete exhaustion" rule to the
prisoner's complaint, dismissing all claims merely because administrative
remedies had not been exhausted with respect to some of them. Hubbard v.
Thakur, No. 03-10058, 344 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit alleging improper denial of
medical and dental care was properly dismissed when he failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. He
failed to follow advised procedures for appealing the initial rejection of his
grievance after being told that his appeal had incorrectly been sent directly
to the prison's superintendent instead of the grievance clerk. Colon v. Harvey,
No. 02-CV-6407, 344 F. Supp. 2d 896 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
A federal trial court improperly dismissed a
prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit for failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. The prisoner sued
correctional officials, claiming various violations of his constitutional
rights in connection with his attempt to be placed on the indigent prisoner
list so that he would be provided with personal hygiene products. A federal
appeals court held that the prisoner adequately exhausted his available
administrative remedies when the warden granted him the relief he sought in his
grievance and placed him on the indigent inmate list. He could, accordingly,
proceed with his federal civil rights claim concerning actions of correctional
officials prior to that grant of relief. Malone v. Franklin, No. 04-6193, 113
Fed. Appx. 364 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court reinstates Buddhist
prisoner's claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) that it violated his rights to deny him a special religious diet
without meat, dairy products, or "pungent vegetables." Exhaustion of
remedies under Religious Freedom Restoration Act was sufficient to support
claim under RLUIPA, since the legal standards under both statutes were
identical. Dehart v. Horn, #03-4250, 390 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Feb]
A New York prisoner's failure to file a timely
appeal to the highest administrative level of his grievance against a
correctional officer concerning his removal from his porter work assignment
barred his federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e for failure
to exhaust available administrative remedies. His failure to do so was not
excused by his transfer to another correctional facility. Soto v. Belcher, No.
01 Civ. 7520, 339 F. Supp. 2d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner ruled to have adequately exhausted
available administrative remedies even when he had not "technically
exhausted" procedures prescribed by state law for inmate grievances
because he had pursued both formal and informal avenues to present his
grievances and did not receive any formal response to his grievance until five
months after it was filed. Defendant correctional officers were therefore not
entitled to summary judgment in the prisoner's lawsuit claiming that they had
assaulted him. Jenkins v. Raub, No. 01-CV-64221, 310 F. Supp. 2d 502 (W.D.N.Y.
2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders further proceedings
concerning whether prisoner was justified in failing to file a grievance
concerning correctional officers' alleged assault on him by their threats of
retaliation if he did so. Hemphill v. State of New York, #02-0164, 380 F.3d 680
(2d Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
Under California statutory law, both the State
and the Department of Corrections were immune from liability on a prisoner's
claims arising out of alleged medical malpractice and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Prisoner was also required, under both federal and state
law, to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing his claims in
court, and failed to do so. Wright v. State of Cal., No. C044302, 19 Cal. Rptr.
3d 92 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2004). [N/R]
Man held under Illinois sexually dangerous
persons statute, under which criminal proceedings are stayed for the purpose of
treatment for mental illness was a pretrial detainee properly classified as a
"prisoner" for purposes of the exhaustion of remedies requirement and
"three strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. His lawsuit
asserting a claim for alleged inadequate access to prison law library was
therefore properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies. Kalinowski v. Bond, No. 02-3273, 358 F.3d 978 (7th Cir.), cert,
denied, 124 S. Ct. 2843 (2004). [2004 JB Dec]
Defendants in prisoner's federal civil rights
lawsuit were entitled to summary judgment when he failed to make specific
allegations from which the trial court could determine which, if any, of his
claims he had exhausted available administrative remedies on, as required by 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, and he failed to identify the prison employees named as
defendants in his lawsuit in his grievances and failed to assert grievances
about any specific action allegedly performed by them. Williams-El v. McLemore,
No. CIV. 98-74042, 327 F. Supp. 2d 784 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
When the plaintiff prisoner showed that he had
exhausted available administrative remedies as to some claims in his lawsuit,
but not as to others, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e,
did not require the dismissal of his lawsuit in its entirety. Prisoner stated
an arguable due process claim by alleging that he was not given any outside
exercise for a period of time and was prevented from showering for weeks during
his disciplinary confinement in a special housing unit when the only evidence
supporting the discipline was an accusation from a confidential informant that
he had been selling drugs. Ortiz v. McBride, No. 02-0088, 380 F.3d 649 (2nd
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner, who received favorable rulings in his
prison grievances concerning alleged inadequate medical treatment, and
specifically, special orthopedic footwear provided to him after foot surgery,
sufficiently exhausted his available administrative remedies when the favorable
rulings allegedly failed to result in any relief. Appeals court states that a
prisoner who does not receive promised relief under such circumstances is not
required, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, to file
yet another grievance concerning that. Abney v. McGinnis, #02-0241, 380 F.3d
663 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that Prison
Litigation Reform Act's requirement that prisoners exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing lawsuits applies to prisoners in
private facilities. Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, No. 03-5227, 380 F.3d
989 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Nov]
Even though a pretrial detainee was moved from
one county jail to another and kept in solitary confinement until after the
deadline for filing an administrative grievance had passed, and allegedly was
never informed of the grievance procedure, he was not excused from the
requirement under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) that he exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging
that officers used excessive force against him during a strip search. Court
notes that the detainee was not prevented from filing a grievance concerning
this issue, and in fact, he did submit requests for medical treatment during
that time. Turrietta v. Barreras, No. 02-2343, 91 Fed. Appx. 640 (10th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Prisoner who failed to appear in person before
prison's review board did not thereby fail to exhaust his available
administrative remedies when there was no rule requiring those pursuing
grievances before it to appear in person and he allegedly was not informed that
the board wanted him to personally appear. Federal appeals court, therefore,
reverses dismissal of prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim against correctional
officers for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Carroll v. Yates, No.
01-2931, 362 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner was required under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing disability discrimination claim under
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq., against
correctional officials for their alleged failure to treat his attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Chamberlain v. Overton, 326 F. Supp. 2d 811
(E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's raising of his complaint in a
disciplinary hearing might amount, in some circumstances, to exhaustion of
remedies prior to commencing litigation for purposes of Prison Litigation
Reform Act. Johnson v. Testman, No. 02-0145 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 17236 (2d Cir.
2004) [2004 JB Oct]
Prisoner's civil rights lawsuit claiming that
correctional officers assaulted him was barred on the basis of his failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e.
While he did write letters of complaint to prison officials, he did not report
the alleged assault to the officers' immediate supervisor, and did not appeal
adverse determinations concerning his complaint. Stephenson v. Dunford, 320 F.
Supp. 2d 44 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
California prisoner's lawsuit claiming that
corrections officers assaulted him dismissed for failure to totally exhaust
available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Entire complaint dismissed when it contained a
mixture of both exhausted and unexhausted claims, although prisoner could, if
he wanted, file a new complaint concerning only claims on which he had
exhausted administrative remedies. Mubarak v. California Department of
Corrections, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner was excused from having to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights lawsuit against jail
employees' alleged use of excessive force against him both in reliance of then
applicable case law later rejected by U.S. Supreme Court, and also because his
transfer to another facility made administrative remedies at the county jail no
longer "available" to him. Rodriguez v. Westchester County Jail Corr.
Dept., No. 02-0325, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 12488 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2004
JB Aug]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against
correctional officials for allegedly keeping him locked in a cell without
adequate heating and ventilation was improperly dismissed for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. Under prison's grievance policy,
these issues were non-grievable since they involved many prisoners. Figel v.
Bouchard, #03-1567, 89 Fed. Appx. 970 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Trial court improperly dismissed prisoner's
lawsuit concerning prison officials' alleged failure to protect him from
another inmate on the basis of failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies without considering prisoner's claim that prison officials prevented
him from exhausting his administrative remedies by beating him, threatening
him, denying him grievance forms and writing implements, and transferring him
to another facility. Trial court could also have considered his claim that complaints
to the FBI constituted an informal exhaustion of his administrative grievances
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an
"affirmative defense," and is subject to "estoppel" barring
the defense if prison officials actually did prevent a prisoner from pursuing a
grievance. Ziemba v. Wezner, No. 02-0340, 366 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prison officials could assert a prisoner's
failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as a defense in a second
summary judgment motion in his federal civil rights lawsuit after having failed
to do so in a first summary judgment motion, and even after the time period for
filing such a motion had expired. First, the defendants had also alleged this
defense in their answer to the complaint. Second, since the defendants could
have asserted the same defense at trial, allowing the summary judgment motion
to be filed saved the prisoner the expense of preparing for a trial that he
would have lost. Summary judgment for prison officials upheld. Villante v.
Vandyke, No. 03-0044, 93 Fed. Appx. 307 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Former prisoner could pursue claims for nominal
damages for alleged violations of his First Amendment rights while incarcerated
despite provision in Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e)
preventing him from pursing claims for compensatory damages in the absence of
physical injury. Further, the fact that the prisoner had been released did not
make his claim moot, as nominal damages are past damages. McDaniels v. McKinna,
#03-1231, 96 Fed. Appx. 575 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) before filing a
lawsuit concerning prison officials' alleged deliberate indifference to his
medical needs concerning his feet and footwear. While he did file a prison
grievance, he did not mention these officials in the first step of his
grievance procedure. Vandiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
[N/R]
Statute of limitations on prisoner's disability
discrimination claim based on his dismissal from prison job was tolled
(extended) under Pennsylvania state law during the time that a prison official
delayed filling out an administrative complaint form, even though the delay was
not intentional, but merely negligent. Limitations period was also extended
during the time that the prisoner pursued the exhaustion of his available
administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Howard v.
Mendez, 304 F. Supp. 2d 632 (M.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit concerning complaints about
his medical treatment, when most of the complained of treatment took place
after he filed his administrative grievance, was properly dismissed in its
entirety for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Ross v.
County of Bernalillo, No. 02-2337, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8362 (10th Cir. 2004).
[2004 JB Jun]
Dismissal of federal prisoner's claim for alleged
loss of his property due to negligence of prison employees was proper. No such
claim could be brought under Federal Tort Claims Act, and prisoner failed to
exhaust available prison grievance procedure as to any civil rights claim. Further,
mere negligence leading to loss of property cannot be the basis of a
constitutional claim. Steele v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, #02-1492, 355 F.3d
1204 (10th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB May]
Prisoner showed that he exhausted his available
administrative remedies on his claim that inadequate medical care was provided
for his Crohn's disease and diabetes when prison officials failed to respond to
his filed grievance during the subsequent four-year time period. Woulard v.
Food Service, 294 F. Supp. 2d 596 (D. Del. 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials granted summary judgment on
prisoner's claim that he was beaten by correctional officers after defendants
presented evidence supporting their contention that he had failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a).
Arnold v. Goetz, 245 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claims against 26 correctional
employees and officials for alleged denial of adequate medical care and
unconstitutional conditions of confinement dismissed based on his failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. McCoy v. Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 233
(S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that a dismissal of a
prisoner's civil rights lawsuit for failing to exhaust administrative remedies
was improper in the absence of prior notice and an opportunity to respond being
provided to the prisoner. Mojias v. Johnson, No. 03-0121, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis
24693, 351 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Feb]
A genuine factual issue as to whether a prisoner
exhausted his administrative remedies concerning his grievance over missing a
night-time dosage of prescribed pain medication precluded summary judgment for
state Department of Corrections Commissioner in prisoner's federal civil rights
lawsuit. Richardson v. Goord, #02-289, 347 F.3d 431 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit was improperly dismissed for failure
to exhaust available administrative remedies when he was actually unable to
pursue a grievance, allegedly because prison officials refused to provide him
with the necessary grievance forms. Mitchell v. Horn, #98-1932, 318 F.3d
523 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Jan]
Pennsylvania prisoner failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights claim asserting
that correctional officers failed to protect him against attack by another
inmate when he did not file administrative grievances within the 15-day time
period established by the state's inmate grievance system. Casey v. Smith, No.
02-4245, 71 Fed. Appx. 916 (3rd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies for the alleged confiscation of his property required
the dismissal without prejudice of his federal civil rights claim alleging that
the seizure of his sexually explicit materials violated his First Amendment
rights. McMillian v. Litscher, No. 99-3029, 72 Fed. Appx. 438 (7th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
When defendant prison officials suggested, but
did not affirmatively plead as a defense, the prisoner's failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies, their dismissal motion would be converted
into a motion for summary judgment by the court, with an order providing for
further briefing or the production of evidence, and the plaintiff prisoner
given an opportunity to respond. Torrence v. Pesanti, 239 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D.
Conn. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court finds that a prisoner can
exhaust his administrative remedies by presenting his complaints to prison
officials, even if they refuse to address the grievance because it was untimely
under prison rules. To pursue a claim in his subsequent lawsuit, however, the
grievance must have provided prison officials notice of the nature of the
complaint. Plaintiff prisoner did not, in his grievance, provide notice that he
was asserting a failure to protect claim against correctional officers who
allegedly saw a fellow officer beat him but failed to intervene, but $70,000 in
damages awarded against officer who allegedly beat him. Thomas v. Woolum,
#01-3227, 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
Prisoner's claims for compensation for personal
property that correctional officers allegedly destroyed were barred when
prisoner failed to show that he had exhausted available administrative remedies
as required under the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a). Khan v. U.S., 271 F. Supp. 2d 409 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoners asserting claims against county and
sheriff for alleged systemic violations of their rights as persons with
"serious mental health needs" were not required to exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing suit when there was "no available
administrative remedies" that the plaintiffs could have used for relief.
Shook v. Bd. of County Commissioners of the County of El Paso, 216 F.R.D. 644
(D. Colo. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue a federal civil rights
lawsuit alleging that correctional officers assaulted him without provocation
and used excessive force against him when success in his claim for damages
would imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction for assault and
battery and "insolence" arising from the same incident. The
prisoner's claims were barred by the principles established in Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), since his disciplinary conviction had not been set aside.
Denham v. Shroad, No. 02-1821, 56 Fed. Appx. 692 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner could pursue claims against some nurses
for alleged inadequate medical care and retaliation against him for filing of
an earlier lawsuit, but not against one nurse against whom he had failed to
exhaust available administrative remedies concerning retaliation claim. The
prisoner's grievance only had to allege misconduct by the nurses and did not need
to plead all the elements of a particular legal theory. Burton v. Jones, No.
01-1078, 321 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Summary judgment was improper on prisoner's claim
that correctional officers assaulted him when there was a genuine issue of fact
as to whether he had exhausted his available administrative remedies prior to
filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a). Evans v. Jonathan, 253 F. Supp. 2d 505 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials were entitled to amend their response
to inmate's lawsuit claiming that correctional employees assaulted him to
assert a defense of failure to exhaust available dministrative remedies. While
they were aware of the defense earlier, the law was not clear that it applied
to the circumstances of this lawsuit prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002), ruling that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a)'s
requirement of exhaustion of remedies applies to all prisoners "seeking redress
for prison circumstances or occurrences." Livingston v. Piskor, 215 F.R.D.
84 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
While the failure of prison officials to respond
in a timely fashion to a prisoner's grievance might show, in some instances,
that the prisoner had sufficiently exhausted available administrative remedies,
the plaintiff prisoner failed to present evidence that he was
"hampered" in this case by an untimely response, so trial court's
dismissal of his lawsuit was appropriate. Sergent v. Norris, No. 02-4142, 330
F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Inmate who completed only the first step of a
multi-step jail grievance procedure failed to satisfy the requirements of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, that he exhaust
available administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit seeking damages for
an allegedly unreasonable body cavity search. Morgan v. Maricopa County, 259 F.
Supp. 2d 985 (D. Ariz. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner was barred from pursuing federal civil
rights claim that he was placed in danger when prison officials identified him
to the general prison population as a gang member when he failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Labounty v. Johnson, 253 F. Supp. 2d 496
(W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Because of a factual issue as to whether an
inmate actually filed a grievance, and, if so, whether the correctional
facility responded to it, the issue of whether he had exhausted available
administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) could not be decided on a motion
to dismiss. Sweet v. Wende Correctional Facility, 253 F. Supp. 2d 492 (W.D.N.Y.
2003).[N/R]
Kansas prisoner could pursue claim against state
for personal injuries he suffered while operating a road grader at a
correctional institution and was not required under state law to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing suit, under applicable state regulation.
K.A.R. 44-16-104. Bates v. State of Kansas, No. 88,757, 67 P.2d 168 (Kan. App.
2003). [N/R]
Federal trial court sets aside jury's award of $1
in nominal damages and $30,000 in punitive damages to female prisoner who sued
correctional officer who allegedly engaged in an inappropriate relationship
with her, including taking photographs of her and writing her love letters.
Plaintiff prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Her
participation in the departmental investigation that led to the officer's
resignation was not the same as pursuing available grievances on her own
behalf, and the fact that money damages, the only thing she sought after his
resignation, were not available under the grievance procedure did not render
those procedures "unavailable." Hock v. Thipedeau, 245 F. Supp. 2d
451 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
Because the plaintiff was a prisoner when he
brought his lawsuit concerning an alleged assault by prison personnel and
forced medication, his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
required dismissal of his lawsuit, despite the fact that he had subsequently
been released from custody while his lawsuit was pending, federal appeals court
rules. Cox v. Mayer, No. 02-5102, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 11554 (6th Cir.). [2003
JB Jul]
Illinois prison officials failed to prove that
plaintiff prisoner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies on
his federal civil rights lawsuit asserting that they violated his
constitutional rights by failing to ship 99 boxes, containing over 2,800 pounds
of his property to California after he was transferred there. Prisoner stated
that he did not know, until after his transfer, that the material would not be
shipped, and it was "doubtful" that he could use Illinois
administrative remedies once he was in a California prison. Prisoner's federal
lawsuit was barred, however, by his prior Illinois state court mandamus action
seeking to force the shipment of the boxes, in which the state court had
rejected his claim. Walker v. Page, No. 00-3990, 59 Fed. Appx. 896 (7th Cir.
2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that prisoner
satisfied the "exhaustion of available administrative remedies"
requirement sufficiently by alleging that he was unable to timely file an
initial grievance because of his broken hand. Appeals court vacates dismissal
of prisoner's civil rights lawsuit for damages, based on his broken hand from
slip and fall in prison dining area. Days v. Johnson, #02-10064, 322 F.3d. 863
(5th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Prisoner could decide, under New York state
regulations, not to appeal an adverse administrative decision of his prison
grievance, but that decision forfeited his right to bring a federal civil
rights lawsuit, under the requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e) that available administrative remedies first be
exhausted. U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516
(2002) (exhaustion of remedies requirement applies to all prisoner seeking
redress for prison circumstances or occurrences) applies retroactively to
claims filed before the ruling. Santos v. Hauck, 242 F. Supp. 2d 257 (W.D.N.Y.
2003). [N/R]
Requirement that a prisoner exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit applies
to pretrial detainees. Plaintiff prisoner's lawsuit seeking his release from
special housing unit rejected for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Additionally,
despite the allegedly non-violent nature of the crime with which the detainee
was charged, the government presented evidence asserted to link him in some way
to individuals implicated in the attacks of September 11, 2001, raising
significant security issues with regard to the conditions of his pre-trial
incarceration. United States of America v. Al-Marri, 239 F. Supp. 2d 366
(S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit against prison officials for failing
to protect him against assault by other inmates should not have been dismissed
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies despite the fact that he never
filed an administrative grievance, when prisoner was told by officials that he
had to "wait" until their "investigation" was finished, and
he was not informed, months later, that it had ended. Brown v. Croak, No.
01-1207, 312 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
Prisoner's lawsuit concerning permanent
restrictions on his use of the phone should be dismissed when he failed to
comply with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, that he exhaust available administrative remedies before
filing suit. Prisoner filed three administrative grievances concerning
restrictions on his phone use, but only pursued appeals on two of the
grievances. Smeltzer v. Hook, 235 F. Supp. 2d 736 (W.D. Mich. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner complied adequately with the exhaustion
of administrative remedies requirement when he submitted a grievance concerning
his alleged physical mistreatment by correctional officers which was not
responded to in any way. Abney v. County of Nassau, 237 F. Supp. 2d 278
(E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Informal complaints that a prisoner made to the
city's inspector general, such as leaving telephone messages concerning his
alleged inadequate medical treatment, inadequate heat in the city correctional
facility, etc., did not satisfy the legal requirement that he exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit. To
allow him to bypass formal administrative procedures "would obviate the
purpose for which the procedures were enacted." Berry v. Kerik, 237 F.
Supp. 2d 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that prisoner
pursuing claims against Louisiana correctional officials and employees for
inadequacies in his medical treatment had to exhaust available administrative
remedies, despite recent decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court finding the
state's prison grievance system unconstitutional in part, since that system
nevertheless remained in place. Ferrington v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections,
#02-30256, 315 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
Federal prisoner's civil rights claims concerning
alleged confiscation of his wheelchair and destruction of his leg braces, along
with discontinuation of his physical therapy following transfer to a new
facility, were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies. Prisoner submitted requests for administrative
remedies to warden and then sent new requests to Regional Director instead of
submitting appeals to the Regional Director, and no appeals were ever made to
the Director of National Inmate Appeals. Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b) claims not filed within 6 months of receiving notice of
administrative agency denial were time barred. Smith v. U.S., #02-1172, 53 Fed.
Appx. 514 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner who bypassed the first two levels of
administrative review of his grievances concerning conditions of confinement
and declined to submit to their review after the regional prison official at
the third level returned his complaint failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. The fact that the prisoner believed that pursuing his
grievances at the local level would have been futile did not alter the result.
Jeanes v. U.S. Depart. of Justice, 231 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
County sheriff and other jail personnel, in
allegedly interfering with a detainee's ability to exhaust administrative
remedies on his grievances, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
before proceeding with a federal civil rights lawsuit, might be subject to
liability for interfering with the detainee's constitutional right of access to
the courts on several claims which were non-frivolous. Complete absence of
legal materials at jail prevented detainee of learning of exhaustion
requirement or attempting to comply with it, and plaintiff was told his
complaints were not subject to grievance procedure. Davis v. Milwaukee County,
225 F. Supp. 2d 967 (E.D. Wis. 2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
Nebraska Supreme Court, in prisoner's lawsuit
claiming that his rights were violated by being celled with another inmate who
smoked tobacco, rules that Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement, in 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), that inmates exhaust available administrative remedies
before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuits is an affirmative defense, rather
than a necessary element of the plaintiff's claim. In reaching this ruling, the
court overturned its own prior ruling in Pratt v. Clarke, 258 Neb. 402, 604
N.W.2d 822 (1999). Cole v. Isherwood, No. 8-00-665, 653 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2002).
[N/R]
Federal trial court was required under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(a) to dismiss, without prejudice, prisoner's federal civil rights
lawsuit over prison conditions when he had failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies prior to filing suit but was in the process of doing so
when the motion to dismiss was filed. McKinney v. Carey, #01-17436, 311 F.3d
1198 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prison Litigation Reform Act's "exhaustion
of remedies" requirement applied to a grievance procedure described in an
inmate handbook, even when it had not been formally adopted by a state
administrative agency and even if the "effectiveness" of the
grievance procedure "may have been unclear," federal appeals court
rules. Concepcion v. Morton, #01-4345, 306 F.3d 1347 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003
JB Feb.]
Rastafarian prisoner's equal protection challenge
against California prison hair length regulation should not have been dismissed
for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies when defendant prison
officials failed to establish such a failure to exhaust. Federal appeals court
rules that failure to exhaust is a defense, with the burden on the defendants
to establish it. Wyatt v. Terhune, #00-16568, 305 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2002).
[2003 JB Feb.]
New York State Department of Corrections (DOCS)
was immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a state prisoner's federal civil
rights lawsuit challenging prison conditions. Claims against prison
superintendent and two guards were also dismissed because of failure to
prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Miller v. New York State
Department of Corrections, 217 F. Supp. 2d 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).[N/R]
Prisoner did not demonstrate exhaustion of
remedies in his federal civil rights claim over alleged inadequate medical
treatment when his complaint did not involve any named defendants and no
documentation was provided for any of his grievances. Glenn v. Campbell,
#01-6063, 40 Fed. Appx. 21 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner must show that he exhausted his
available administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit
over prison conditions, rather than while his lawsuit is pending in court.
Failure to do so requires dismissal of the complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a). Mack v. DeWitt, No. 01-4163, 40 Fed. Appx. 36 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner did not adequately exhaust his available
administrative remedies prior to filing suit when prison officials failed to
respond to many of his grievances and did respond to one of his grievances,
since prisoner could have filed a timely appeal but failed to do so. The
doctrine of "substantial compliance" did not apply to the prisoner's
exhaustion requirement when his cause of action accrued after the effective
date of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Lewis v. Washington, No. 00-2017, 300
F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner was required to exhaust available
administrative remedies before beginning his federal civil rights lawsuit over
officers' alleged failure to protect him from assault by other prisoners.
Dismissal of prisoner's lawsuit would be without prejudice, allowing him to
exhaust remedies and then refile the lawsuit, when prisoner filed his lawsuit
before the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear, in its decision in Porter v.
Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983 (2002) that the remedies exhaustion requirement of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) "applies to all
inmate suits about prison life, whether they involved general circumstances or
particular episodes." Peoples v. Beldock, 212 F. Supp. 2d 141 (W.D.N.Y.
2002). [N/R]
Prisoner who failed to comply with a grievance
procedure established by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections could not
proceed with his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that correctional
officers assaulted him. Plaintiff was required, under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a)
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, to exhaust available administrative
remedies before filing suit. Foster v. Murphy, 211 F. Supp. 2d 354 (D. Mass.
2002). [N/R]
County jail inmate who was transferred to a state
facility before he commenced his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that
correctional officers assaulted him had no available administrative remedies to
exhaust before filing suit, since the county jail's administrative remedies
were only available to facility residents. Ligon v. Doherty, 208 F. Supp. 2d
384 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 JB Nov]
Prisoner's failure to file a timely appeal from a
disciplinary board's decision denying his grievance was a failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, requiring dismissal of his lawsuit under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). African-American bi-sexual
prisoner could not pursue claim that he was treated differently than white
heterosexual prisoner involved in the same incident of alleged sexual conduct.
Thomas v. Doyle, #01-1773, 39 Fed. Appx. 373 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to completely exhaust available
administration remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming
that officers used excessive force against him and that a prison doctor
subsequently denied him medical care for resulting injuries. Rodriguez v. Hahn,
209 F. Supp. 2d 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
HIV-positive prisoner who allegedly suffered from
AIDS failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies under New York
state law as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a) before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming inadequate
medical care. Dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice was required when
prisoner submitted an initial grievance, but took no additional steps when he
received no response. Reyes v. Punzal, 206 F. Supp. 2d 431 (W.D.N.Y. 2002).
[N/R]
Federal appeals court holds that prisoner's
claims over his alleged denial of medication for high blood pressure,
headaches, and a heart condition were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. The burden was on the prisoner to specifically show,
for each claim, the specific steps he had taken to pursue such remedies, and
the result. Smith v. Shelby County, #01-59399, 34 Fed. Appx. 188 (6th Cir.
2002). [2002 JB Oct]
Plaintiff inmates' failure to demonstrate that
they had exhausted their available administrative remedies prior to bringing
their federal civil rights case over prison conditions did not deprive the
federal court of the jurisdiction to consider their case. A dismissal of the
inmates' appeal of the dismissal of their complaint on the basis that a notice
of appeal only had the signature of one of the seven inmate plaintiffs was
improper, as the signature requirement was also not jurisdictional. Casanova v.
DuBois, #99-1838, 289 F.3d 142 (1st Cir. 2002). [N/R]
The fact that a former inmate was no longer a
prisoner when he appealed the dismissal of his federal civil rights lawsuit for
a failure to exhaust administrative remedies was irrelevant--the dismissal was
proper because he was still a prisoner when he initially brought the lawsuit,
and the facts showed that he failed to pursue his grievances through every
available administrative route. Dixon v. Page, #01-1973, 291 F.3d 485 (7th Cir.
2002). [2002 JB Sep]
Prisoner's initiation of an "informal"
grievance concerning his alleged wrongful transfer from one facility to another
was insufficient to meet his burden of exhausting available administrative
remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit when he did not
complete the formal grievance procedure, but instead signed a form indicating
that he was satisfied with the outcome of the informal process. Williams v.
Jefferson County Circuit Court Clerk, #01-5885, 33 Fed. Appx. 763 (6th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Inmate's failure to pursue a grievance against a
particular prison official for allegedly filing a retaliatory report against
him because of the prisoner's complaints about other officials results in a
requirement that his federal civil rights claim against that official must be
dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Richardson
v. Hillman, 201 F. Supp. 2d 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Porter v.
Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983 (2002), ruling that claims of every sort relating to
prison life--including claims for excessive force against an individual
inmate--must satisfy the exhaustion of remedies requirement of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, applies retroactively to a case in
which the complained of incident occurred before Porter was decided. Hemphill
v. New York, 198 F. Supp. 22d 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Arkansas prisoner with asthma and "painful
knot" in his side adequately stated claims for deliberate indifference to
his medical problems by prison farm doctor and nurse, based on alleged denials
of treatment, and stated claim against warden and state corrections director
for "abdication of policy-making and oversight" responsibilities. Appeals
court also finds prisoner adequately exhausted his available administrative
remedies. Leach v. Norris, #01-3315, 34 Fed. Appx. 510 (8th Cir. 2002). [2002
JB Aug]
Prisoner adequately exhausted his available
administrative remedies on his claim of deliberate indifference to his medical
needs before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit when he received a
favorable result on his grievance, even though he did not take his claim to the
highest level possible. Prisoner was not required to appeal a favorable
grievance decision, and a further appeal would not have given him any
additional relief. Brady v. Attygala, 196 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
[2002 JB Aug]
Prisoner's complaint that failure of prison
officials to provide him with a kosher food diet violated his right to exercise
his religion should be dismissed without prejudice because of his failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies provided under Tennessee state law.
Watler v. Campbell, #01-5646, 33 Fed. Appx. 764 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Inmate's alleged pursuit of his grievance through
informal channels under New York law was relevant to the issue of whether he
had exhausted available administrative remedies before pursuing his federal
lawsuit. Federal trial court allows prisoner to proceed with conducting
discovery concerning his informal grievance. Perez v. Blot, 195 F. Supp. 2d 539
(S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner was required to pursue a grievance with
the prison's chief medical officer before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit
over the alleged denial of necessary medical treatment even if, as he claimed,
it would have been futile to do so. The requirement of exhaustion of available
administrative remedies in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) does not contain a futility
exception. Farrell v. Addison, #01-7094, 01-7127, 34 Fed. Appx. 650 (10th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
New Jersey state prison inmates who alleged
racial discrimination and conspiracy to violate their rights on the basis of
race following the fatal stabbing of a correctional officer by a inmate could
pursue their federal civil rights lawsuit without pursuing supposed remedies
described in state prison's inmate handbook. Court finds that grievance
procedures described were not sufficiently clear and that therefore no
available administrative remedies existed for inmates to exhaust before filing
suit. In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, No. 97-5127, 190 F. Supp. 22d 755
(D.N.J. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Prisoner did not show that correctional
facility's institutional inspector violated his right to access to the courts
by refusing to issue him grievance forms which he could use to challenge his
conditions of confinement when prisoner did not claim that there was no other
source for the forms or that he had made other attempts to pursue his
grievance. Watley v. Goodman, #01-3860, 31 Fed. Appx. 169 (6th Cir. 2002).
[2002 JB Jul]
Prisoner who claimed correctional officers
severely beat him was required to exhaust available administrative remedies
before filing suit despite the fact that they could not lead to monetary
awards. Actions including the disciplining of the officers or the transfer of
the prisoner to another facility where he would not be under their supervision
were possible responses to an administrative complaint, and the administrative
exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a) requires a prisoner to exhaust any procedure that has authority to
take "some action" in response to his complaint. Larkin v. Galloway,
#00-1414, 266 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner who claimed that correctional officials
had subjected him to a substantial risk of being attacked and sodomized by
other prisoners by placing him in a particular prison unit without adequate
security and protection had to exhaust available administrative remedies before
bringing suit in federal court. Exhaustion requirement was intended to curtail
frivolous prisoner litigation, and by 1995, prisoners filed more than 25% of
the cases filed in federal trial courts, which Congress concluded included more
frivolous lawsuits than suits pursued by "any other class of
persons." Torres v. Alvarado, 143 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Puerto Rico 2001).
[N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit claiming he was subjected to a hot
prison cell with poor ventilation which caused respiratory distress was
properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
While the prisoner did file and pursue an administrative grievance, he did not
show that he ever appealed the denial of the grievance. Lyons-Bey v. Curtis,
#01-1574, 30 Federal Appendix 376 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jun]
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a
court, before analyzing whether a prisoner has stated a federal civil rights
claim under the Eighth Amendment, to first assess whether the plaintiff has
exhausted available administrative remedies. Prisoner's claims were therefore
dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to do so. Serrano v. Alvarado, 169 F.
Supp. 2d 14 (D. Puerto Rico 2001). [N/R]
A prisoner's federal civil rights claim does not
accrue until he has exhausted available administrative remedies. Prisoner
must specifically plead such exhaustion in their complaint. Exhaustion
requirement applies whether the claim is pursued in federal or state court.
Martin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 00CA37, 749 N.E.2d
787 (Ohio App. 2001). [2002 JB May]
Since the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, courts may no longer examine available grievance procedures to determine
whether they would serve the inmate's intended purpose. State of Florida has
adopted a rule giving prisoners a right to file a grievance regarding reprisals
against inmates who have filed complaints, and prisoner could not pursue a
lawsuit without first pursuing such a grievance. Hollingsworth v. Brown, No.
1D00-3126, 788 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. App. 2001). [2002 JB May]
A prisoner's assertion that pursuing available
administrative remedies would be futile did not excuse his failure to pursue
prison grievance procedures before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Freytes
v. Laboy, 143 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D. Puerto Rico). [N/R]
Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rules that "exhaustion
of remedies" requirement of Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to all
lawsuits by inmates about prison life, including those involving particular
incidents, such as an allegation of excessive use of force by a correctional
officer, as well as those that involve general circumstances or conditions.
Porter v. Nussle, 2002 U.S. Lexis 1373. [2002 JB Apr]
Prison Litigation Reform Act's provisions
requiring the exhaustion of available administrative remedies before proceeding
with a lawsuit did not apply to prisoner's New York state law negligence claim
based on the alleged failure of correctional officers and prison officials to
protect him from assaults by other inmates. Nunez v. Goord, 172 F. Supp. 2d 417
(S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit, over incident which occurred
prior to the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, with its exhaustion
of remedies requirement, but which was filed after the enactment of the law,
was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies by filing a written
complaint with the prison. McCoy v. Gilbert, No. 00-1354, 270 F.3d 503 (7th
Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
Prisoner may have sufficiently exhausted
"available" administrative remedies if, as he claimed, prison
officials failed to comply with his requests to be furnished with grievance
forms. Miller v. Norris, #00-1053, 247 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
Further proceedings ordered to determine whether
prisoner exhausted available administrative remedies in lawsuit alleging denial
of his right to practice his Jewish religion. Plaintiff alleged that prison
officials prevented him from pursuing administrative remedies further by either
stating or implying that no further avenues were available for him. Lyon v.
Krol, #00-3283, 270 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner had to exhaust available administrative
remedies before pursuing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that he was
subjected to repeated harassment by prison officials in retaliation for his
success in winning a prior lawsuit against the prison health services director
for refusing to authorize his liver transplant. Johnson v. Litscher, #00-2978,
260 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Feb]
Prisoner sufficiently exhausted his
administrative remedies for his grievances claiming that he had been sprayed
with pesticides in a prison housing unit, even though he had not specifically
named the defendants in his lawsuit in his grievances. The grievances alleged
the relevant factual circumstances, and requested the identities of the
individuals directly responsible for the spraying. Irvin v. Zamora, No.
99CV2350, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (S.D. Cal. 2001). [2002 JB Feb]
Court would dismiss all of prisoner's federal
civil rights claims when he had exhausted his available administrative remedies
on some, but not all, of his claims. Rivera v. Whitman, No. Civ. A.99-544, 161
F. Supp. 2d 337 (D.N.J. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue civil rights lawsuit
over alleged inadequate medical treatment when he failed to ever submit a
grievance under an available four stage prison administrative process. Massey
v. Helman, #00-1478, 259 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
Prisoner's claim that he was assaulted by officers in
retaliation for his participation in a prison disturbance was subject to the
exhaustion of remedies provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and was
properly dismissed when he failed to pursue administrative grievance. The
purpose of this requirement was not only to block frivolous lawsuits, but also
to permit prison officials to attempt to first address complaints internally.
Smith v. Zachary, #99-4084, 255 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner had to exhaust available administrative
grievances before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison nurse's
alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs. "Substantial"
compliance with the exhaustion of remedies requirement was not enough. Wright
v. Hollingsworth, No. 99-40063, 260 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
297:135 Prisoner was required to exhaust administrative
remedies before proceeding with lawsuit challenging prison drug testing
policies, which constituted a claim about "prison conditions," but he
was not required to do so on claims that prison officials took retaliatory disciplinary
actions against him individually. Giano v. Goord, #98-2619, 250 F.3d 146 (2nd
Cir. 2001).
294:88 Prisoner did not need to exhaust administrative
remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit for particular,
individualized instance of alleged retaliation by correctional officer; inmate
claimed officer filed disciplinary charges against him because of his
complaints to prison authorities about the officer's alleged misconduct.
Lawrence v. Goord, No. 99-0202, 238 F.3d 182 (2nd Cir. 2001).
296:115 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
prisoners must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a
lawsuit, even when they are seeking only money damages and money damages may
not be obtained through the administrative grievance process. Booth v. Churner,
#99-1964, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001).
296:120 Arkansas prisoner's lawsuit was properly
dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies; even if
prisoner submitted evidence to the appeals court that he may have exhausted
remedies on one of his claims, he never showed that to the trial court, and the
burden to do so was his. McAlphin v. Morgan, #99-4112, 216 F.3d 680 (8th Cir.
2000).
292:59 UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether
prisoner who claimed that correctional officers used excessive force against
him was required to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a
federal civil rights lawsuit for damages, even if money damages could not be
awarded in the administrative proceeding. Booth v. Churner, Co., #97-7487 &
97-7488, 206 F.3d 289 (3rd Cir.), reported in Jail & Prisoner Law Bulletin,
No. 287, p. 168 (Nov. 2000), cert. granted, No. 00-289, 121 S. Ct. 377 (2000).
291:38 Former prisoner, who sued over delay in
treatment of cheek abscess, was not a "prisoner" required to exhaust
available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights
lawsuit. Burton v. City of Philadelphia, 121 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: Two federal courts of appeals, facing
the issue of released prisoners, both held that plaintiffs who file prison
condition lawsuits after their release from custody are not
"prisoners" required to exhaust administrative remedies under the
PLRA. Page v. Torrey, 98-56526, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000); Greig v. Goord,
97-9340, 169 F.3d 165 (2nd Cir. 1999).
296:121 Prisoner adequately exhausted administrative
remedies on his excessive force claim against officers when he attempted to
file his grievance, but it was not processed; the merits of his claim were
later examined and rejected by the highest official in the state corrections
department. Camp v. Brennan, No. 99-3887, 219 F.3d 279 (3rd Cir. 2000).
289:10 Federal appeals court rules that provision of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act requiring the exhaustion of administrative
remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit does not apply to a
prisoner's claim that correctional officers physically assaulted him without
any lawful justification. Nussle v. Willette, No. 99-0387, 224 F.3d 95 (2nd
Cir. 2000).
289:9 Prisoner's failure to name the warden or
correctional commissioner in his administrative grievances concerning alleged
denial of prescribed treatment for his hernia did not constitute a failure to
exhaust administrative remedies so as to require dismissal of his subsequent
federal civil rights lawsuit against them. Brown v. Sikes, No. 98- 08727, 212
F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2000).
[N/R] Some prisoners asserting Eighth Amendment claims
substantially complied with the administrative exhaustion requirement of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act prior to filing their lawsuit, but some did not.
Curry v. Scott, No. 99-3474, 249 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2000). [N/R] Prisoner's
failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not deprive federal court of
jurisdiction; prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, however, so
trial court should have dismissed his claims. Chelette v. Harris, No. 99-1759,
229 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2000).
[N/R] Prisoner's excessive-use-of-force claim was
subject to the exhaustion of remedies provision of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act; section of the Act containing the exhaustion requirements was not
unconstitutionally vague. No. 99-8055, 223 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2000).
[N/R] Prisoners were required to exhaust administrative
remedies on their excessive force claims even when they could not receive money
damages through administrative proceedings. Kunckles El v. Toombs, No. 98-
2181, 215 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2000).
286:154 Federal appeals court rules that Kansas state
prisoner's lawsuit over his private prison industry work assignment could
proceed, at least insofar as it sought money damages, despite failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies, when administrative remedies did not
provide for awards of money. Miller v. Menghini, #99-3401, 213 F.3d 1244 (10th
Cir. 2000).
287:168 Prisoner who claimed that correctional officers
used excessive force against him was required to exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit for
damages, even if money damages could not be awarded in the administrative
proceeding. Booth v. Churner, Co., #97-7487 & 97-7488, 206 F.3d 289 (3rd
Cir. 2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals had
previously reached the same result in a case involving a Bivens (direct lawsuit
under a constitutional provision, rather than a statute, such as 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983, applicable only to those acting under state law) federal civil rights
lawsuit against federal correctional officials. Nyhuis v. Reno, #98-3543, 204
F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2000).
283:106 Prisoner's claim that his property had been
lost or destroyed during a prison riot could not be the subject of a federal
civil rights lawsuit when he failed to pursue an available administrative
appeal from the denial of his administrative grievance over the items.
Feliciano v. Servicios Correccionales, 79 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D. Puerto Rico 2000).
281:70 Persons civilly committed as sexually violent
predators under California statute are not "prisoners" for purposes
of Prison Litigation Reform Act; Act's exhaustion of remedies and financial
reporting requirements, therefore, do not apply to them. Page v. Torrey, No.
98- 56526, 98-56591, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000).
281:71 Texas prisoner pursuing only money damages for
alleged failure to provide medical treatment for a ruptured eardrum did not
need to exhaust administrative remedies when state administrative remedies did
not allow for awards of money; appeals court panel urges full Fifth Circuit
federal appeals court to reconsider this rule, however. Wright v.
Hollingsworth, No. 99-40063,201 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2000).
277:5 Prisoner who failed to exhaust available prison
grievance procedures could not pursue federal civil rights lawsuit for damages
over correctional officer's alleged failure to protect him from assault by
another prisoner; the fact that the grievance procedure did not provide a money
damages remedy did not alter the result. Langford v. Couch, 50 F. Supp. 2d 544
(E.D.Va. 1999).
277:10 EDITOR'S NOTE: See Williams v. Norris, No.
99-1743, 176 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999). (Rastafarian prisoner's lawsuit against
prison rule prohibiting him from wearing his hair in "dreadlocks" was
improperly dismissed because prisoner complied with Prison Litigation Reform
Act's "exhaustion of administrative remedies" requirement, since his
grievance had been denied by the Warden and the Assistant Director of the state
Department of Corrections at the time the court acted).
278:25 Exhaustion of remedies requirement of Prison
Litigation Reform Act did not apply retroactively to bar lawsuit already
pending; federal appeals court reinstates prisoner's lawsuit complaining that
officials prevented him from meeting with prison chaplain. Salahuddin v. Mead,
#97-2522, 174 F.3d 271 (2nd Cir. 1999).
278:28 Failure to adequately supervise jail guards to
prevent sexual harassment of female prisoners results in civil rights liability
for District of Columbia; plaintiff prisoner asserted that she and others were
forced to participate in "strip-shows" and "exotic" dancing
for guards; "exhaustion of remedies" provision of Prison Litigation
Reform Act did not apply. Newby v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 35
(D.D.C. 1999).
279:41 Prison Litigation Reform Act did not require
California prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing his
federal civil rights lawsuit for damages over alleged misconduct, including
assault, by prison guard; grievance process did not have any available remedy
which could have granted him the damages he sought in the lawsuit. Rumbles v.
Hill, No. 98-16794, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999).
282:88 Prisoner was required to pursue available
administrative remedies over alleged failure to protect him against rape by a
fellow prisoner even though the damages he was seeking in a federal civil
rights lawsuit were not available in the administrative process; appeals court
finds, however, that prisoner "substantially complied" with
exhaustion requirement. Wyatt v. Leonard, No. 98-4161, 193 F.3d 876 (6th Cir.
1999).
283:107 Prisoner's lawsuit alleging that he was
assaulted by a corrections officer constituted a claim concerning "prison
conditions," requiring him to exhaust available administrative remedies
before filing; since he did not do so, the suit was properly dismissed. Freeman
v. Francis, #98-4288, 196 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1999).
284:123 Prisoner's claim that requiring him to keep his
cell windows closed for three days and nights was cruel and unusual punishment
did not allege a physical injury as required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act or a sufficient deprivation to be an Eighth Amendment violation; state
negligence claim was barred for failure to comply with notice of claim
requirement. Sarro v. Essex County Correctional Facility, 84 F. Supp. 2d 175
(D. Mass. 2000).
284:124 Georgia prisoner's claim that a correctional
employee sexually abused him was subject to dismissal when he failed to exhaust
available administrative grievance procedures before filing his federal civil
rights lawsuit. Dillard v. Jones, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2000).
285:135 Wisconsin appeals court rules that a state
notice of claim statute was not an "administrative remedy" that a
plaintiff prisoner was required to "exhaust" before proceeding with
his federal civil rights lawsuit, filed in state
court, challenging the exclusion of all material
containing nudity or pornography from state prisons. Ledford, State Ex Rel., v.
Cir Ct. for Dane County, No. 99-0939-W, 599 N.W.2d 45 (Wis. App. 1999).
285:136 Federal appeals court upholds jury award
totaling $83,250 against a correctional officer who broke a prisoner's nose
while beating him in his cell and against fellow officer who was
"deliberately indifferent" to prisoner's safety. Wolff v. Moore, No.
96-4080, 199 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 1999).
287:164 One-year statute of limitations for bringing a
federal civil rights lawsuit in Louisiana was extended during the time the
prisoner was pursuing his available administrative remedies, as he was legally
required to do under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; plaintiff stated a claim
for deliberate indifference to treatment of his broken jaw. Harris v. Hegmann,
No. 98-30617, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999).
[N/R] Inmate did not fail to exhaust administrative
remedies when he failed to sign and date prison grievance form he submitted, or
by failing to appeal denial of his grievance when he was told that an appeal
was precluded. Miller v. Tanner, No. 98-9153, 196 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 1999).
275:170 Texas prisoner was deemed to have exhausted
administrative remedies when he properly filed grievance, despite the fact that
prison system did not address some of his arguments in its response to his
grievance; lawsuit over alleged failure to protect him from assault by another
prisoner could proceed. Powe v. Ennis, #98-40234, 177 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999).
268:55 Prisoner was required to exhaust available
administrative remedies before he could pursue lawsuit for money damages over
officer's alleged assault on him; unavailability of money damages as a remedy
in administrative proceedings did not alter result. Moore v. Smith, 18
F.Supp.2d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 1998).
» Editor's Note: In the following cases, courts have held
that when a prisoner sues for monetary damages, the prisoner does not have to
exhaust his administrative remedies because monetary damages are not
"available" under prison grievance procedures: Garrett v. Hawk, #96-
1429, 127 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 1997); Lunsford v. Jumao- As, #96-56503, 155
F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 1998); Hollimon v. DeTella, 6 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D. Ill.
1998); Jackson v. DeTella, 998 F.Supp. 901 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Sanders v. Elyea,
1998 WL 67615 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 1998); Russo v. Palmer, 990 F.Supp. 1047
(N.D. Ill. 1998); Polite v. Barbarin, 1998 WL 146687 (S.D.N.Y. March 25, 1998)
(unpublished).
270:89 Prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative
grievance remedies for his claim that correctional officials did not protect
him from attack by another prisoner required dismissal of federal civil rights
lawsuit; failure to protect claim was a claim concerning prison conditions.
Soto v. Elston, 993 F.Supp. 163 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
271:103 Prisoner who claimed that he suffered only
emotional injury (and no physical injury) when correctional officer allegedly
told others that he was "dying of HIV" could not pursue federal civil
rights claim; section of Prison Litigation Reform Act barring such suits did
not violate equal protection or his right of access to the courts. Davis v.
District of Columbia, No. 97-7043, 158 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
274:150 Prisoner's exhaustion of administrative
remedies after filing federal civil rights lawsuit over prison work assignment
did not excuse his failure to do so prior to filing lawsuit, as required by
Prison Litigation Reform Act. Underwood v. Wilson, #97-40536, 151 F.3d 292 (5th
Cir. 1998).
» Editor's Note: See also Harris v. Gunderman, 30
F.Supp.2d 664 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), ruling that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act required the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a
prisoner claiming that correctional officers severely beat him, when the
plaintiff prisoner failed to ever file an available administrative grievance
concerning the alleged incident.
[N/R] Provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act
concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply retroactively
and plaintiff prisoner had "substantially" complied with exhaustion
of remedies requirement. Bishop v. Lewis, #95-15035, 155 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.
1998).
[N/R] Prisoner did not have to exhaust administrative
remedies before proceeding with federal civil rights lawsuit alleging prison
officials failed to protection him from assault by another prisoner, since internal
grievance proceeding would not have compensated him for his injuries. Freeman
v. Godinez, 996 F.Supp. 822 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
261:136 Lawsuit alleging that correctional officers
themselves assaulted prisoner was not a lawsuit over "prison conditions"
requiring the exhaustion of available administrative remedies under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, as lawsuit alleging officers failed to protect prisoner
from assault by other inmates would have been. Rodriguez v. Berbary, 992
F.Supp. 592 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). » Editor's Note: In the following cases, prisoners
were required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil
rights lawsuits: Tafoya v. Simmons, 116 F.3d 489 (Table) (10th Cir. 1997)
(inmate must exhaust administrative remedies regardless of whether or not the
administrative action is futile); Morgan v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 976
F.Supp. 892 (D. Ariz. 1997) (inmate's claim that prisoner officials threatened
his safety and allowed other inmates to assault him considered a prison
condition and therefore must be grieved); Midgette v. Doe, 1997 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 15918, 1997 WL 634280 (S.D.N.Y.) (inmate must exhaust his administrative
remedies in a failure to protect claim); Mitchell v. Gomez, 1997 WL 305273, No.
C96-3939 FMS, (N.D. Cal. June 2, 1997) (inmate must exhaust administrative
remedies for a claim that prison guards incited other inmates to assault him);
McCoy v. Scott, 1997 WL 414185, No. C 97-0472 TEH(PR), (N.D. Cal. July 15,
1997) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies for a claim that prison
officials ignored his concerns about problems with his cellmate).
261:137 Prisoner's federal lawsuit about alleged delay in
cataract surgery on his eye dismissed when he could not show that he pursued
all administrative appeals available to him in the California correctional
system. Alexandroai v. Calif. Dept. of Corrections, 985 F.Supp. 968 (S.D. Cal.
1997).
[N/R] Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison officials
retaliated against him after he filed a lawsuit against another prison official
was properly dismissed due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593
(6th Cir. 1997).
238:147 Federal Prison Litigation Reform Act becomes law,
makes numerous changes in prison litigation, including scope of injunctive
orders, standards for termination of injunctive orders, amount of attorneys'
fees, standard for prisoner release orders in overcrowding cases, prisoner
payment of filing fees and court costs, barring inmates who repetitively file
frivolous suits from further filings, no awards for mental/emotional distress
in the absence of physical injury, and revocation of federal prisoner's good
time credits if they file malicious lawsuits or testify falsely, among other
highlights.