Asheton S. Morgan v. Tony Trierweiler, 67 F.4th 362

Background

Morgan, a Muslim inmate approved for a religious (Halal/vegan) diet, was transferred to Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) on Sept. 13, 2016; IBC did not provide the approved religious menu.
Morgan informed staff he was improperly housed and filed a Step I grievance on Sept. 18, 2016 complaining of ongoing denial of religious meals (listing the incident range as Sept. 13–18).
The facility addressed the grievance on the merits (Oct. 7, 2016), explaining IBC was not a designated location for the vegan religious menu and that SCC would consider transfer; Morgan appealed to Step II and Step III asserting he was "still being denied" his religious rights.
Morgan sued in federal court (Dec. 18, 2018) alleging ongoing First Amendment free-exercise violations for forced consumption of non-Halal food; the case proceeded to summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.
The magistrate and district court held Morgan failed to exhaust administrative remedies for conduct after Sept. 13, 2016 (reading the grievance narrowly); defendants moved for summary judgment and prevailed below.
The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding Morgan’s grievance adequately alleged a continuing violation and that the facility waived procedural defects by addressing the grievance on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a single grievance exhausted administrative remedies for ongoing denial of religious meals (continuing-violation doctrine)	Morgan argued the grievance alleged a continuing, ongoing denial of Halal meals covering post-grievance conduct	Defendants argued the grievance covered only conduct up to Sept. 13 and that separate grievances were required for later discrete incidents	Court held Morgan’s grievance adequately alleged a continuing violation; one grievance exhausted remedies for the ongoing denial of religious meals
Whether Morgan waived the continuing-violation argument by first raising it after the magistrate judge’s report	Morgan contended the grievance and subsequent appeals consistently alleged ongoing denial, so the argument was inherent and timely	Defendants said the argument was raised too late (only in objections/reply) and thus waived	Court found no waiver: the grievance and appeals sufficiently put officials and the court on notice of an ongoing harm, so the argument was properly considered
Whether exhaustion failed because grievance did not name specific defendants required by policy	Morgan noted prison officials reached the grievance merits and thus waived procedural specificity requirements	Defendants argued policy required names and that omission meant claims against specific officials were unexhausted	Court applied Reed-Bey: because officials addressed the grievance on the merits, they waived procedural objections; remedies exhausted as to IBC officials named in suit
Whether ancillary allegations (e.g., staff laughing, punitive refusals) required additional grievances beyond the meal denial claim	Morgan argued these facts were ancillary to the core ongoing denial of religious meals and were encompassed by the grievance	Defendants suggested ancillary misconduct made the claim broader and discrete, requiring further exhaustion	Court held ancillary facts were sufficiently related to the exhausted claim; no additional grievances required

Key Cases Cited

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (establishes "proper exhaustion" requires use of all administrative steps required by prison process)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (compliance with prison grievance procedures alone satisfies PLRA exhaustion)
Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010) (prison officials who address a grievance on the merits waive procedural defenses)
Siggers v. Campbell, 652 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2011) (distinguishes discrete, fact-specific incidents that each require separate grievances)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (continuing-violation doctrine; a continuing harm can toll time-based bars)
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (only "available" administrative remedies must be exhausted; processes that are opaque or thwarted need not be used)
Doe v. Snyder, 945 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2019) (defendant bears burden to prove failure to exhaust; courts view evidence in light favorable to nonmovant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: view evidence and draw inferences for the nonmoving party)
Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) (prisoner alleging repeated assaults was not required to file a grievance after each discrete incident where the harm was the ongoing failure to protect)