413 F. App'x 660
4th Cir.2011Background
- Graham, a former correctional officer, was incarcerated at Gloucester County Jail after assault by inmates.
- Graham filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action alleging unconstitutional conditions, failure to protect, and inadequate medical care.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Graham failed to exhaust jail grievance remedies; the district court granted, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
- Graham had access to an inmate handbook referencing the grievance procedure and attended an orientation that verbally explained it, but he did not receive or request a written copy of the written policy.
- Graham never filed a written grievance or requested grievance forms; a July 12, 2006 meeting discussed the assault but not the grievance process, and Graham signed a statement limited to stopping investigations.
- Graham newly raised no evidence that jail officials impeded access to the grievance process, and there is no evidence he pursued the procedure irrespective of the available system.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo whether the administrative remedy was available and concluded Graham failed to show he was prevented from using it through no fault of his own.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grievance procedure was 'available' to Graham | Graham argued he did not know how to file a grievance, so not available | Procedure was available; Graham knew of it and could inquire | Available; failure to exhaust |
| Whether knowledge of existence suffices for exhaustion | Graham knew of the procedure but not how to file | Knowledge alone does not satisfy exhaustion if not prevented from using it | Not satisfied; knowledge alone insufficient |
| Whether Graham's July 12 meeting exhausted the remedy | Meeting information could count toward exhaustion | Meeting did not constitute formal grievance processing | No exhaustion via meeting |
| Whether the district court erred in not applying an alternative 'objective' exhaustion test | Should adopt broader, objective standard | Moore standard suffices | Moore standard applied; no exhaustion |
| Whether dismissal should have been without prejudice | District court should dismiss without prejudice due to missing time policies | Plaintiff waived this argument | Waived; not addressed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717 (4th Cir. 2008) (prisoner not prevented from accessing remedy must be shown to deny availability)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (exhaustion mandatory for inmate suits under PLRA)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (availability judged by whether a similarly situated might deem procedures available)
- Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000) (exhaustion considerations when guards do not process forms)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 F.2d 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for summary judgment—facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)