Dawson v. Cook
238 F. Supp. 3d 712
E.D. Pa.2017Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Dawson, a former inmate, alleges Officer Eric Cook assaulted him on Sept. 2, 2012, causing head wounds (eight stitches) and permanent loss of vision in his left eye; Plaintiff later pleaded guilty to aggravated assault related to that incident.
- Plaintiff filed a § 1983 excessive-force suit on May 19, 2014, seeking $5,000,000; the claim proceeded only against Officer Cook (prison system dismissed).
- Defendant moved for summary judgment asserting (inter alia) failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; initial motion was denied without prejudice and a revised motion was later filed.
- Prison grievance policy requires filing a written grievance within 10 days, provides a receipt copy to the inmate, sets response timeframes, and allows appeal to the Commissioner if time limits expire.
- Defendant produced prison electronic records and a deputy warden affidavit showing no grievance was recorded concerning the Sept. 2, 2012 incident; Plaintiff testified he filed a grievance but produced no receipt or other corroboration and did not respond to the second summary-judgment motion.
- Court granted summary judgment for Defendant solely on failure-to-exhaust grounds and did not reach Heck or qualified-immunity arguments; case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion under PLRA | Dawson says he filed a grievance about the assault and received no response. | Cook says prison records show no grievance filed; policy gave appeal route for nonresponse; Dawson did not appeal. | Court: Dawson failed to exhaust; summary judgment for Defendant. |
| Effect of inmate's plea/Heck doctrine | (Not developed) | Cook contends Heck bars suit because Dawson pleaded guilty to aggravated assault arising from the same incident. | Court: Did not reach Heck because it disposed of the case on exhaustion. |
| Qualified immunity | (Not developed) | Cook asserts qualified immunity as an alternate defense. | Court: Did not reach qualified-immunity question. |
| Procedural effect of plaintiff not responding to motion | Dawson did not file opposit ion to second motion. | Cook argues the record and prison documents establish no genuine dispute. | Court independently reviewed record; absence of response did not relieve Dawson of summary-judgment obligations; Defendant met burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2000) (excessive force is a prison condition subject to PLRA exhaustion)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Sup. Ct.) (prisoners must comply with prison procedural rules to properly exhaust)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Sup. Ct.) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural requirements)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (Sup. Ct.) (exhaustion is mandatory under PLRA)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir.) (PLRA exhaustion includes a procedural-default component governed by prison rules)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (summary-judgment standard: genuine dispute and material fact)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Sup. Ct.) (court need not adopt version of facts blatantly contradicted by the record)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct.) (invalidity of conviction bars § 1983 claim seeking damages for that conviction)
- Boykins v. Lucent Techs., 78 F. Supp. 2d 402 (E.D. Pa.) (pro se plaintiffs must still present evidence opposing summary judgment)