David Reyes v. Christopher Smith, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 433

Reyes, a California state inmate, was prescribed pain meds including morphine for a degenerative spine condition; Pain Management Committee initially approved, later ordered gradual reduction and discontinuation by June 2011.
Reyes filed a grievance alleging unbearable pain and denial of narcotics, claiming deliberate indifference; the grievance cited Eighth Amendment concerns.
A PA denied the pain-medication request, stating Narcotics were not medically necessary and referenced potential reevaluation by a rheumatologist.
The grievance proceeded through three levels of review, with decisions denying the request and stating the issue was resolved; the final denial noted the grievance exhausts available remedies.
Reyes filed § 1983 suit in district court; the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust under PLRA due to not naming all staff involved, and Judge granted dismissal as to the physicians; appeal followed.
The issue before the court is whether exhaustion under PLRA can be satisfied when officials decide merits despite procedural rule noncompliance; the court holds that it does.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
PLRA exhaustion when merits are reached despite procedural flaws	Reyes exhausted because officials decided on the merits	Procedural rule noncompliance bars exhaustion	Exhaustion satisfied when decisions on merits occur despite flaws
Sufficiency of grievance to alert to the wrong	Grievance alerted to denial of pain meds by doctors and by Pain Management Committee	Grievance did not name all involved staff to exhaust	Grievance sufficed to alert officials and exhausts under PLRA

Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion defeated only if procedural rules, not merits, were addressed)
Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2011) (exhaustion satisfied when merits addressed despite procedural flaws)
Whatley v. Warden, 802 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2015) (PLRA exhaustion when merits addressed)
Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2012) (exhaustion where merits addressed over procedural defects)
Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009) (grievance sufficiency does not require legal terminology)
Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2010) (grievance alerts to the nature of the wrong; not require naming all officials)
Nussle v. Williams, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion defined by available remedies and proper procedures)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion requires adherence to procedural rules unless merits addressed)
Jones v. Bock, 549 F.3d 199 (7th Cir. 2007) (proceedings define boundaries of proper exhaustion)