Huskey v. Jones, 45 F.4th 827

Sept. 8, 2016: Huskey alleges officers used excessive force (face shoved into wall, slaps, restraint), removed his clothes, denied timely medical care; later x-ray showed a broken arm.
Huskey filed three ARP grievances on Sept. 12, 2016; each was screened out with the reason "requested relief is beyond the power of the ARP to grant."
Huskey sought to amend and appealed the rejections (Sept.–Oct. 2016); the ARP director replied that a rejection at initial screening prevents proceeding to step two.
District court granted summary judgment for defendants for failure to exhaust under the PLRA; Huskey filed a Rule 59(e) motion whose timeliness was later found sufficient under the prison mailbox rule.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit considered whether administrative remedies were "available" under Ross v. Blake given material differences between the 2015 SOP (given to Huskey) and a revised 2016 online inmate handbook (which included a rejection reason and a five-day cure rule Huskey did not have access to).
Holding: The court reversed summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact whether remedies were effectively unavailable to Huskey (so summary judgment for failure to exhaust was improper) and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Huskey exhausted PLRA administrative remedies before suing	Huskey asserts he filed grievances and attempted proper appeals under the 2015 SOP; ARP rejections prevented further appeal so remedies were unavailable	Grievances were rejected at screening and Huskey failed to follow correction/new-grievance procedures (or did not properly appeal), so he did not properly exhaust	Reversed summary judgment: factual dispute exists whether remedies were "available," so failure-to-exhaust at summary judgment was not established
Whether discrepancies between the 2015 SOP and 2016 online handbook (and Huskey's lack of internet access) made remedies unavailable under Ross v. Blake exceptions	Huskey says he received only the 2015 SOP (which lacked the online handbook's screening/reject rules and cure option) and had no internet access, making the scheme opaque and practically unusable	Defendants say Huskey had notice/access to the handbook or, as a matter of logic, relief beyond MDOC power could not be obtained via ARP	Court held the record supports a reasonable inference that the grievance scheme may have been so opaque or that Huskey was thwarted, creating a genuine factual dispute on availability

Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (administrative remedies that are not "available" need not be exhausted)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (exhaustion analyzed by prison grievance process rules)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (only grievance procedures capable of providing relief must be exhausted)
Wilson v. Epps, 776 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. strict approach: remedies must be properly exhausted)
Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. discussion of exhaustion standards)
Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, 418 F.3d 453 (judicial notice of state/federal agency website content)
Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665 (taking judicial notice of agency website)