Fernando Bustillo v. Art Beeler, 495 F. App'x 343

Bustillo appeals district court orders denying part of discovery, denying a preliminary injunction, and dismissing Bivens claims; opinion affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for further proceedings.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act; unexhausted claims may be dismissed if the prisoner was given an opportunity to address exhaustion.
District court found Bustillo failed to exhaust claims about access to the mail system and rumors labeling him a 'snitch'.
Court vacates and remands to address three exhausted/merits-unclear claims: withheld cirrhosis treatment; alleged fabrication of discharge of a colostomy bag; retaliatory transfer and administrative segregation at FMC Springfield related to the lawsuit.
The court upheld summary judgment on Bustillo’s claims alleging denial of hernia surgery and denial of food, and affirmed denial of discovery prior to summary judgment.
The court denied Bustillo’s requests for injunctive relief and access to his court files and mail, while addressing other challenged rulings on injunctive relief and perjury claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bustillo exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.	Bustillo argues exhaustion was not satisfied for several claims.	Defendants argue nonexhaustion defeats claims under PLRA.	Exhaustion required; district court erred in addressing some claims; remanded.
Whether summary judgment was proper on the hernia surgery denial and food denial claims.	Bustillo contends genuine disputes existed about medical care and nutrition.	Appellees assert no genuine factual disputes and proper entitlement to summary judgment.	Properly granted; no genuine factual dispute shown.
Whether the district court properly denied discovery prior to summary judgment.	Bustillo needed discovery to support claims.	Defendants argue discovery was appropriately limited.	No abuse of discretion; discovery denial affirmed.
Whether injunctive relief and access-to-courts relief were properly denied.	Bustillo seeks access to court files and mail and injunctive relief.	Prison admin and court actions unsupported for injunctions; no irreparable harm shown.	Affirmed denial of injunctive relief and access relief.
Whether remand and consideration of three specified claims is required.	Bustillo seeks remand to address exhaustion/merits for three claims.	District court should resolve exhaustion and merits issues on remand.	Vacated and remanded to address three claims for exhaustion/merits.

Jones v. Brock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion mandatory under PLRA; unexhausted claims cannot be brought)
Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717 (4th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; dismissal allowed with opportunity to address)
Strag v. Bd. of Trs., 55 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1995) (discovery standards/applications in civil cases)
PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2011) (standard for summary judgment; fact disputes must preclude judgment)
Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (injunctive relief requires likelihood of irreparable harm)
Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287 (4th Cir. 2011) (preliminary injunction standards in Fourth Circuit)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (prisoner access to courts rights)
Bryant v. Muth, 994 F.2d 1082 (4th Cir. 1993) ( Bounds rights and related procedures)