Darreyll Thomas v. Michael Reese
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9078
7th Cir.2015Background
- Darreyll Thomas, a Wisconsin prisoner, alleges that three Dane County deputy sheriffs used excessive force when handcuffing him after he refused a top-bunk assignment and to be handcuffed behind his back (he had medical restrictions).
- Thomas was placed in punitive segregation, waived a disciplinary hearing, and received ten days of segregation as punishment; he was later transferred back to state custody.
- About a year later Thomas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and related claims; the district court dismissed some claims but allowed the excessive-force claim to proceed.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (failure to exhaust), citing the jail handbook language that grievances are not allowed for "major discipline" because a separate disciplinary appeal exists; they argued Thomas should have raised his complaint in the disciplinary process.
- Thomas countered that administrative remedies were not available: he lacked the handbook while in segregation and officers he asked told him he could not file a grievance about the incident.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants for failure to exhaust; the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding administrative remedies were not actually available to Thomas and remanding for merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas exhausted available administrative remedies under the PLRA | Thomas: remedies were unavailable — he lacked handbook access and officers told him he could not grieve | Defendants: handbook required use of disciplinary appeal for "major discipline," so Thomas should have raised complaints at disciplinary hearing | Held: Remedies were not available; Thomas did not need to exhaust and may pursue court action |
| Whether jail officials' statements or withholding the handbook made grievance process unavailable | Thomas: officers' refusal/information prevented use of grievance process | Defendants: handbook on its face provided the required process | Held: When officials prevent use, the process on paper is unavailable (officials' conduct made remedy unavailable) |
| Whether the disciplinary process encompassed and required raising excessive-force complaints against staff | Defendants: disciplinary hearing functions as the required forum (analogous to compulsory counterclaim) | Thomas: disciplinary hearing is limited to disputing alleged violations, not separate claims about staff use of force | Held: Handbook and disciplinary scope do not require or permit raising excessive-force claim there; remedy not actually available |
| Denial of judge recusal | Thomas: judge had personal knowledge / bias | Defendants: denial proper; adverse rulings don't show bias | Held: Recusal denial affirmed; no evidence of disqualifying bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (exhaustion required before suit)
- King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889 (prisoners must exhaust only available remedies)
- Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (officials preventing use of process render remedies unavailable)
- Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (remedy unavailable when staff misconduct prevents exhaustion)
- Dale v. Lippin, 376 F.3d 652 (remedy unavailable where officials refuse to provide required grievance forms)
- Gilbert v. Cook, 512 F.3d 899 (disciplinary finding can coexist with excessive-force claim)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (exhaustion is an affirmative defense)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (adverse rulings do not alone show judicial bias)