Fletcher v. Menard Correctional Center
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22401
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Fletcher, an Illinois state prisoner, alleged excessive force during a June 29, 2008 transfer and denial of medical care for injuries and chronic conditions.
- Because Fletcher had three prior dismissed suits, he could not proceed in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- The district court dismissed for lack of imminent danger and failure to pay the filing fee; a motions panel allowed his appeal in forma pauperis.
- The case followed Fletcher v. Deathridge, where the court previously noted Fletcher lacked evidence of asthma or diabetes; the present judge adopted a similar rationale but ignored the asserted beating.
- There was an argument that a beating and an untreated wound could constitute imminent danger, warranting referral to emergency procedures.
- Illinois provides an emergency grievance procedure (20 Ill Admin Code 504.840) for urgent medical needs, directed to the warden with potential relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imminent danger excused the three-strikes limit for IFP. | Fletcher contends imminent danger existed due to alleged beating and medical neglect. | Imminent danger does not override the three-strikes rule without exhaustion considerations. | Imminent danger did not excuse failure to exhaust; three-strikes dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required and could be excused by imminent danger. | Administrative remedies should be excused due to imminent danger and lack of timely relief if exhausted. | Exhaustion is mandatory regardless of danger, with no futility exception for unavailable remedies. | Exhaustion required; imminent danger did not operate to excuse exhaustion because remedies were available. |
| Whether Fletcher could pursue emergency-grievance relief given the emergency procedure in Illinois and timing of his filing. | Emergency grievance could have addressed urgent medical needs; timely relief was possible. | Emergency relief did not salvage exhaustion under the timing and processing rules. | Emergency procedure available but did not excuse failure to exhaust; suit was properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2003) (untreated wounds can pose imminent danger)
- Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (untreated conditions may create imminent danger)
- Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (imminent danger analysis in early inmate actions)
- McAlphin v. Toney, 281 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002) (imminent danger exception to exhaustion)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion required; remedies must offer relief)
- Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2002) (duty to exhaust applies even when danger claimed)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (futility not equivalent to unavailability)
- Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2003) (futility considerations in exhaustion)
- Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 1998) (context for emergency relief and imminent danger)
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2001) (safety valve purpose of the imminent-danger exception)
- Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2005) (emergency relief and imminent danger considerations)
- Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 1999) (exhaustion and administrative remedies framework)