Jacob Townsend v. Terry Murphy
898 F.3d 780
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Townsend, an inmate at Arkansas’s Tucker Unit, alleged supervisors required him to work with chlorine gas without training or safety gear.
- He submitted an informal written complaint to Sergeant Jeavon Perry (a designated “problem solver”); after receiving no response for six weeks, Townsend filed a formal grievance late.
- The prison rejected the formal grievance as untimely under a six-business-day deadline in the administrative directive.
- Townsend sued three officials (Murphy, Romine, and Warden White) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; defendants moved for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Townsend submitted a sworn declaration that Perry told him not to file a formal grievance until Perry responded and that prison staff denied him library access to review the directive; defendants produced no contrary evidence.
- District court granted summary judgment to all defendants; the Eighth Circuit reversed as to Murphy (formal process was unavailable) and affirmed as to Romine and White (Townsend failed to name them in the informal complaint).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether formal grievance process was "available" under PLRA | Perry misled Townsend and denied library access, making formal procedure unavailable | Townsend missed the six-day deadline, so he failed to exhaust | Court: Formal process was unavailable as to Murphy due to Perry's misrepresentation and denied access; summary judgment reversed as to Murphy |
| Whether failure to name Romine and White in the informal complaint defeated exhaustion | Informal complaint to Perry sufficed to exhaust against all responsible officials | Townsend’s informal complaint did not identify Romine or White as required by the form; thus he did not exhaust against them | Court: Informal process was available and Townsend failed to identify Romine/White; summary judgment affirmed for Romine and White |
| Whether unavailability of one administrative step excuses noncompliance with other available steps | Unavailability of formal grievance negates need to comply with informal-step specificity | Even if formal step unavailable, prisoner must exhaust any other available remedies (e.g., informal complaint) | Court: Prisoner must exhaust available remedies; failure to comply with available informal process is fatal for claims against unnamed officials |
| Proper standard on summary judgment review | Townsend’s declaration should be credited where defendants offered no contrary evidence | Defendants asserted failure to exhaust as undisputed fact supporting summary judgment | Court: Review de novo; genuine dispute existed regarding availability of formal process, so summary judgment improper as to Murphy |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (exhaustion must follow procedural rules)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (remedies must be "available" to trigger PLRA exhaustion)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (PLRA exhaustion applies to all available administrative remedies)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (exhaustion depends on prison's specific requirements)
- Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136 (Eighth Circuit: exhaustion requires complying with grievance content rules)
- Davis v. Fernandez, 798 F.3d 290 (Fifth Circuit: misrepresentation can render grievance step unavailable)
- Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899 (Seventh Circuit: administrative steps unavailable where staff misleads inmate)
- Porter v. Sturm, 781 F.3d 448 (standard of review for summary judgment)