Asher Hill v. Jerry Snyder
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6206
7th Cir.2016Background
- Asher Hill, an Indiana inmate, sued prison staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims after inmates threw feces at him on four occasions (Feb 2011, May 2011, June 2012, Aug 2012).
- Indiana DOC grievance policy requires three-step exhaustion: informal resolution, formal grievance (subject to 21 processing criteria), and appeal of processed grievances; executive assistant may return a grievance unprocessed and must explain how to correct it; no appeal specified for unprocessed grievances.
- For Feb 2011, Hill filed a formal grievance that was returned unprocessed for failing to seek informal resolution; after he sought informal resolution and resubmitted, the form was returned again with only a notation that staff "viewed the video and is not able to verify this occurred," and no instruction on correction.
- For May 2011, Hill sought informal resolution, submitted a formal grievance which was returned unprocessed as "already resolved informally;" Hill disputed that but did not resubmit within the five-day correction window.
- For June and August 2012 incidents, Hill alleges prison staff refused to provide grievance forms (counselor refused after June incident; unit manager demanded exact time after August incident), preventing him from filing formal grievances.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants for failure to exhaust; Seventh Circuit vacated as to three incidents (Feb 2011, June 2012, Aug 2012), affirmed as to May 2011, and remanded those claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill exhausted administrative remedies for Feb 2011 (formal grievance returned unprocessed with vague notation) | Hill said he complied with policy and was blocked when the grievance was returned without required correction guidance | Defendants said Hill should have inferred the needed correction (e.g., wrong time/date) and fixed it | Court: No exhaustion defense fails; returning grievance without required explanation or appeal left no available remedy, so summary judgment improper |
| Whether Hill exhausted for May 2011 (grievance returned as already resolved informally) | Hill disputed that informal resolution occurred | Defendants said grievance policy allowed return when matter already addressed; Hill could have resubmitted within five days | Court: Hill had an available administrative remedy (resubmit within five days); he did not pursue it, so claim not exhausted; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Hill exhausted for June & Aug 2012 (staff refused to give grievance forms) | Hill said counselor and unit manager refused required forms, preventing exhaustion | Defendants argued Hill should have sought forms from other staff (law librarian, executive assistant, etc.) | Court: Where responsible officials refused forms, remedies were unavailable; Hill was not required to hunt for alternatives; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Tradesman Int’l, Inc. v. Black, 724 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for construing facts at summary judgment in favor of nonmoving party)
- King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2015) (prisoners must exhaust procedures they have been told about, not unknown ones)
- Small v. Camden County, 728 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013) (no exhaustion required when no appeal exists for a non-decision)
- Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2010) (further remedies unavailable when officials screen out grievances for improper reasons)
- Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2002) (dismissal without prejudice can be final for appeal when plaintiff is time-barred from administrative remedies)
- Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion excused where officials refuse to provide grievance forms)