Hernandez v. Dart
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3426
7th Cir.2016Background
- Jose Hernandez, a quadriplegic pretrial detainee who cannot write, was shackled to hospital beds and guarded from March 9–April 18, 2013, while treated at Thorek, Cermak, and Stroger; he alleges shackling impeded medical recovery.
- CCDOC policy requires written grievances within 15 days and appeals within 14 days; grievance forms and a Handbook are supposed to be available but Hernandez says he was not given the Handbook or told about the process while hospitalized.
- Hernandez verbally complained about shackling while hospitalized but did not file a written grievance during that period; after discharge he learned of the grievance process from other inmates.
- On August 3, 2013, while in jail general population, Hernandez (with help writing) filed a grievance about an August 2, 2013 incident where Cermak staff allegedly refused to assist transfers between his chair and bed; he appealed after receiving a response.
- Hernandez sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (shackling) and deliberate indifference (failure to assist transfer). The district court held he failed to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed without prejudice; the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal without prejudice was appealable | Hernandez argued district court was finished and appealable because exhaustion deadlines passed and court directed him to appeal | Defendants argued dismissal without prejudice is not a final appealable order under § 1291 | Court held dismissal was effectively final (dead case, district court finished) and appellate jurisdiction existed |
| Whether Hernandez exhausted administrative remedies for excessive force claim (shackling) | Hernandez argued grievance process was unavailable while hospitalized because CCDOC failed to give Handbook or inform him of procedures, so PLRA exhaustion not required | Defendants argued he failed to file the required written grievance within 15 days | Court held remedies were unavailable (prison failed to inform him), so PLRA exhaustion did not apply and claim may proceed in federal court |
| Whether Hernandez exhausted administrative remedies for deliberate indifference claim (Aug 2 refusal to assist) | Hernandez argued he timely filed (Aug 3) and timely appealed (appeal Sept 17 after response on Sept 11) in accordance with CCDOC rules | Defendants argued he failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Court held Hernandez properly complied with the written grievance and appeal deadlines and exhausted remedies |
| Burden of proof for exhaustion at summary judgment | Hernandez contended defendants bear burden to prove non-exhaustion and failed to do so | Defendants contended non-exhaustion warranted summary judgment | Court reiterated defendants bear burden; absence of contrary evidence meant summary judgment for failure to exhaust was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (administrative exhaustion is a precondition to federal suit under the PLRA)
- Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006) (administrative remedies unavailable where prison staff block access or fail to inform inmates)
- King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2015) (prisoners must exhaust procedures they know about; prison must inform inmates of grievance process)
- Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (procedure for evidentiary Pavey hearings on exhaustion)
- Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (administrative remedies unavailable when officials ignore properly filed grievances)
- Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2003) (when amendment cannot cure failure to exhaust, dismissal without prejudice may be effectively final)