Slip Opinion
N.D. Ohio2021Background
- Inmate Adam Evans arrived at Lorain Correctional Institute April 4, 2019; on April 22 he says he used a bar of state-issued soap that contained staples and was injured.
- Evans filed a step-one informal complaint April 25, 2019; he claims JPay (the prison electronic system) restrictions and staff conduct thereafter prevented him from completing the multi-step grievance process.
- Defendants produced electronic grievance records showing several informal complaints and grievances between April and June 2019 and into 2020, and a step-one entry that was opened and closed on May 6, 2019.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, principally arguing Evans failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the court limited briefing to the exhaustion issue.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact about whether prison officials prevented Evans from using the grievance system (an exhaustion exception), denied summary judgment as to exhaustion only, and referred remaining pretrial matters to the magistrate judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans exhausted administrative remedies under PLRA | JPay restrictions and staff refusals prevented him from completing required grievance steps despite diligent efforts | Evans did not timely exhaust; records show grievances filed and he could access JPay after restriction | Denied summary judgment on exhaustion: genuine dispute of material fact exists whether officials impeded exhaustion |
| Whether the grievance procedure was "opaque" (unavailable) | Procedure was effectively unusable for him | Procedure is clear, documented in inmate manual, and Evans understood it | Court rejected opacity: manual and Evans’ explanation show procedure is not opaque |
| Whether prison officials prevented access to the grievance process (machination/misrepresentation) | Guards denied repeated requests for JPay access and forms, thwarting appeals | Restriction was a two-week punishment; inmates could seek guard assistance and Evans was allowed access afterward | Court found conflicting evidence creates a triable issue; construing facts for Evans supports availability exception to exhaustion |
| Procedural challenges to Evans’ filings (timeliness and compliance) | Late docketing due to courthouse COVID restrictions and mailing; was formerly pro se | Defendants argued noncompliance and lateness justify adverse rulings | Court excused late filing under the circumstances, allowed refiled opposition, admonished future compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (Sup. Ct.) (grievance remedies excused where procedure is a dead end, opaque, or prison officials impede access)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Sup. Ct.) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Sup. Ct.) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; defendants bear burden)
- Surles v. Andison, 678 F.3d 452 (6th Cir.) (applications of PLRA exhaustion in the Sixth Circuit)
- Does 8–10 v. Snyder, 945 F.3d 951 (6th Cir.) (defendant’s summary judgment burden on exhaustion requires showing no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Napier v. Laurel County, 636 F.3d 218 (6th Cir.) (defendants must establish failure to exhaust)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct.) (evaluating evidence and reasonable inferences on summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Sup. Ct.) (crediting video evidence and limits on resisting properly supported summary judgment)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (Sup. Ct.) (prisoner mailbox rule and filing dates)