Hurst v. Hantke
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2542
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hurst, an Illinois state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs after a stroke.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
- Hurst filed a grievance about 8.5 months after the stroke; Illinois 60-day deadline barred timely review under 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.810(a).
- Prison administrative review board denied the appeal for lack of justification; no further explanation was provided.
- The district court held Hurst failed to exhaust because he offered no evidence of incapacitation to support good cause.
- Seventh Circuit held the exhaustion issue turns on availability of remedies and whether good cause can excuse untimely filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Illinois good-cause for untimely filing excuse exhaustion? | Hurst contends good cause existed due to incapacitation. | Prison demanded justification, but no evidence was provided; good cause not established. | Yes, good cause may excuse untimely filing when incapacitation is shown. |
| Is physical incapacitation required to be attached as evidence for good cause? | No attachment required by Illinois rule; evidence optional. | Prison's rule implied evidence is needed to prove good cause. | No strict attachment requirement; evidence not mandated by Illinois code for good cause. |
| Is an untimely grievance due to incapacitation still 'available' under § 1997e(a)? | Remedies should be considered available if incapacitation prevented timely filing. | Untimely filing could be barred regardless of incapacitation without showing availability. | Remedy not available when physical inability prevented timely pursuit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion requirements must be satisfied for federal review)
- Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863 (5th Cir.2003) (secret supplementation to the code can affect availability)
- Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir.2006) (availability of remedies; evidence not always necessary)
- Cannon v. Washington, 418 F.3d 714 (7th Cir.2005) (explicitly discusses good cause when tardiness is present)
- Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489 (7th Cir.2008) (exhaustion burden on prisoner to present evidence to support claim)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion requirements; clarifies availability concept)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir.2010) (discussion of evidence and exhaustion standards)
- Johnson v. Ford, 261 Fed.Appx. 752 (5th Cir.2008) (good cause in untimely grievances)
- Garrett v. Partin, 248 Fed.Appx. 585 (5th Cir.2007) (untimely grievance; exhaustion considerations)
- Tate v. Howes, 2010 WL 2231812 (W.D.Mich.2010) (untimely grievance; good cause evaluation)
- Braswell v. Corrections Corp. of America, 2009 WL 2447614 (M.D.Tenn.2009) (administrative remedies; availability and timeliness)
- Williams v. Hurley, 2007 WL 1202723 (S.D.Ohio2010) (availability of remedies; physical incapacity as good cause)