Darnell Wilson v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 321

Wilson, a Mississippi prisoner at CMCF, filed a 63-page complaint in September 2010 alleging constitutional violations by MDOC officials.
He claimed ten ARPs between July 23 and August 15, 2010 were unanswered and complained about a 90-day processing timeframe.
The Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) at MDOC is a three-step process with time limits and a backlogging policy where only one ARP is active at a time.
The district court and magistrate judge concluded Wilson had not exhausted administrative remedies, dismissing the suit.
Wilson argued MDOC’s failure to respond to grievances excused exhaustion and challenged the ARP as unconstitutional.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and held that failure to respond at preliminary steps does not relieve exhaustion, and Wilson had not pursued all three steps.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MDOC's ARP process is unconstitutional	Wilson argued the ARP is unconstitutional and overly lengthy.	Defendants argued the process is permissible and not unconstitutional.	Unconstitutional arguments rejected; process not deemed unconstitutional.
Whether prison failure to respond excuses exhaustion	Wilson contended lack of timely responses satisfied exhaustion.	MDOC's failure to respond at early steps does not excuse exhaustion; proceed to next step.	Failure to respond does not excuse exhaustion unless the prisoner reaches final step and no timely final decision exists.

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; must prove all elements)
Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) (backlog policy and time limits govern exhaustion, including 90-day completion)
Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion occurs only if grievance pursued to conclusion and timely responses)
Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 1998) (expounded exhaustion requirements prior to filing suit)