1:08-cv-02571
D.N.J.Feb 3, 2012Background
- In July 1997 Bayside State Prison lockdown followed an inmate murder of a corrections officer; SOG assisted regular staff.
- Plaintiff Michael Washington alleges excessive force during the lockdown, including a back kick by SOG personnel.
- Washington did not file an ARF and argued fear of retribution; he asserted §1983 excessive force claim despite PLRA exhaustion.
- Special Master Bissell found Washington failed to exhaust but would have prevailed if exhausted; deemed fear of retribution meritless.
- East Jersey handbook did not explicitly authorize cross-institution ARFs, but the parties stipulated such ARFs would be relayed and investigated.
- The Court treats the Special Master’s factual findings as binding under the governing Agreement; Baez v. Fauver is discussed but distinguished.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baez controls exhaustion here? | Baez should be extended to allow oral infirmary reports as exhaustion. | Baez is distinguishable and not controlling; no policy equates infirmary statements with ARFs. | Baez inapplicable to this case. |
| Do infirmary reports satisfy exhaustion? | Oral reports to infirmary could satisfy administrative remedies under Baez. | No policy recognizing oral infirmary statements as ARFs exists here. | Oral infirmary statements do not satisfy exhaustion. |
| Was an administrative remedy available at East Jersey? | ARFs could have been filed at East Jersey addressing Bayside injuries. | East Jersey ARFs were available and would have addressed Bayside incident. | Administrative remedy was available at East Jersey; failure to file violated PLRA. |
| Are Special Master findings binding? | Should be reviewed de novo despite Agreement terms. | Findings of fact are binding under the Agreement; only legal issues are reviewable de novo. | Special Master findings remain binding as to fact. |
| Does PLRA exhaustion bar Washington's claim? | Exhaustion not properly determined due to potential issues raised by Baez. | PLRA exhaustion satisfied or not satisfied based on available remedies; here it was not exhausted. | Washington failed to exhaust administrative remedies; claim barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baez v. Fauver, 351 Fed. Appx. 679 (3d Cir. 2009) (Third Circuit vacated summary judgment, found material issues regarding ARF conversion and availability)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (exhaustion requirement applicable to prisoner §1983 actions)