11 F.4th 1252
11th Cir.2021Background
- In February 2014 Christopher Varner, an inmate at Augusta State Medical Prison (ASMP), was allegedly assaulted by multiple officers, suffering serious facial and bodily injuries. The warden referred the incident to the Georgia Department of Corrections’ (GDC) Internal Investigations Unit (IIU) the same day.
- The IIU investigated, found excessive force, and the involved officers resigned and later pleaded guilty to federal charges; Varner alleges continued physical and mental injury.
- GDC’s 2012 grievance policy: inmates must file a formal grievance within 10 days (subject to a "good cause" exception); grievances alleging excessive force are automatically forwarded to the IIU and the grievance process terminates (no administrative appeal from the IIU).
- Varner filed two unrelated (diabetes) grievances within 10 days that were rejected on procedural grounds. He later filed three grievances about the assault (2015, 2016, 2017), all ruled untimely; he appealed one and it was rejected as out-of-time.
- The district court dismissed Varner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; Varner appealed, arguing administrative remedies were unavailable or, alternatively, exhausted.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held GDC’s grievance procedure was "available," Varner did not properly exhaust (timely file and appeal), and IIU referral outside the formal grievance process did not satisfy PLRA exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GDC’s administrative remedies were "available" under the PLRA (i.e., whether the grievance process was a "dead end") | Varner: the excessive-force grievance process was a dead end because grievances are merely forwarded to IIU and inmates receive no substantive relief or results, and mental illness prevented him from using the process | Defendants: the policy does provide "some relief"—automatic referral to IIU—and therefore is available; inmates may and did use the grievance system | Court: Remedy was "available." Automatic referral to IIU constitutes "some relief," so the grievance procedure is not a dead end; district court’s factual finding that Varner’s mental illness did not prevent use was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Varner exhausted administrative remedies (timely filing and appeal) or whether IIU referral outside the formal process satisfied exhaustion | Varner: informal complaints by family, untimely grievances, or the IIU referral (regardless of source) exhausted remedies because IIU investigation produced the only relief that the administrative process could provide | Defendants: PLRA requires procedural exhaustion through the administrative process; informal reports and untimely grievances do not satisfy Woodford’s "proper exhaustion," and a warden-initiated IIU referral outside the grievance process cannot substitute for a properly filed grievance | Court: Varner did not properly exhaust. Untimely grievances were procedurally defaulted (appeal rejected or not pursued), and the IIU referral initiated outside the administrative grievance process does not satisfy the PLRA’s requirement to ‘‘properly’’ exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (PLRA exhaustion is mandatory; courts may excuse failure to exhaust only when administrative remedies are not "available")
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) ("remedies" in §1997e(a) focuses on procedural exhaustion; remedies must offer possibility of some relief)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion requires "proper" use of the agency process)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under PLRA)
- Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) (two-step framework for district courts resolving exhaustion disputes at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Whatley v. Warden, 802 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for exhaustion and treatment of factual findings)
- Whatley v. Warden, 898 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2018) (prison waiver of procedural objections can waive exhaustion defense if not relied upon administratively)
- Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (prisoners must take each administrative step properly, including appeals)
- Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005) (PLRA exhaustion contains a procedural-default component)
- Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1998) (rejecting futility exception to exhaustion under PLRA)