23 F.4th 1299
11th Cir.2022Background
- Hamza Maldonado and James Hill, Muslim detainees at Baker County Detention Center, sued in Florida state court alleging denial of Jummah prayer services in violation of federal and state constitutional rights.
- The state court granted both in forma pauperis (IFP) status; defendants removed the action to federal court and paid the federal filing fee; neither plaintiff sought IFP in federal court.
- Maldonado is a three-strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); the district court dismissed Maldonado under § 1915(g) and dismissed Hill for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
- Defendants argued § 1997e(e) barred damages for Maldonado without physical injury; they also argued Hill failed to exhaust available grievances.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed both dismissals: holding § 1915(g) does not apply to suits commenced in state court and removed by defendants where the prisoner did not seek federal IFP, and remanding Hill’s claims for proper exhaustion findings under Turner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (mootness/damages) | Maldonado: § 1997e(e) does not apply because he did not "bring" the action in federal court | Defendants: § 1997e(e) bars recovery for mental/emotional injury absent physical injury | Held: § 1997e(e) not applicable to suit commenced in state court; Hoever permits punitive damages without physical injury |
| Applicability of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (three-strikes) | Maldonado: § 1915(g) applies only to actions a prisoner "brings" under § 1915 in a "court of the United States" (i.e., commenced in federal court and granted IFP) | Defendants: § 1915(g) should apply after removal so three-strikes bars the suit | Held: § 1915(g) does not apply to suits commenced in state court and removed by defendants when the prisoner did not seek federal IFP; reversal of dismissal |
| Exhaustion under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) | Hill: his pro se complaint reasonably alleges either that administrative remedies were unavailable or that he exhausted them | Defendants: administrative grievance procedure was available and Hill did not exhaust | Held: District court failed to apply Turner two-step (accept plaintiff’s allegations at step one and make specific factual findings at step two); remand for determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000) (interprets "brought" as "commenced" for PLRA provisions)
- Hoever v. Marks, 993 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (construes § 1997e(e) to permit punitive damages without showing physical injury)
- Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) (establishes two-step exhaustion inquiry for dismissal motions)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (holds exhaustion is an affirmative defense; plaintiffs need not plead exhaustion)
- Woodson v. McCollum, 875 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2017) (holds § 1915(g) does not apply to cases filed in state court and removed to federal court)