John Does 8-10 v. Rick Snyder, 945 F.3d 951

Plaintiffs John Does 8–10 are individuals who were housed as juveniles with adult inmates in Michigan and allege multiple incidents of sexual abuse by adult prisoners.
MDOC adopted a two-step PREA grievance process on April 27, 2016; PREA/DOJ rules also bar time limits on filing sexual-abuse grievances.
Doe 8 and Doe 10 filed PREA grievances in May 2016; MDOC sent contradictory and late communications, failed to provide clear Step II appeal forms, and issued Investigative Findings forms that the Does did not receive.
Doe 9 did not file a grievance, alleging he was deterred by retaliation (solitary confinement, transfers, staff misconduct including reading legal mail and public shaming).
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the PREA process was unavailable in practice for Does 8 and 10 and that Doe 9’s retaliation excuse needed merits consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which MDOC grievance process applied (PREA vs. general three‑step)?	PREA applies because MDOC treated the complaints as PREA grievances.	General three‑step process should govern, making plaintiffs’ claims time‑barred.	PREA applies — prison officials treated the complaints as PREA grievances and waived procedural objections.
Whether MDOC’s PREA grievance process was "available" under the PLRA for Does 8 & 10	PREA was effectively unavailable due to contradictory communications, missing/incorrect forms, unclear timing, and officials thwarting appeals.	PREA was available; plaintiffs failed to pursue Step II appeals.	PREA was unavailable in practice; exhaustion excused for Does 8 & 10.
Whether Doe 9’s failure to file is excused by fear of retaliation	Doe 9 alleges specific retaliation (solitary, transfer, staff harassment, confiscation, exposure) that would deter an ordinary person from filing.	Defendants dispute retaliation; argue exhaustion required.	Remanded: Doe 9 presented enough evidence that, if true, retaliation would deter a person of ordinary firmness; district court should decide on the merits.
Whether summary judgment for defendants was proper on exhaustion grounds	Plaintiffs argue factual disputes and unavailability excuse preclude summary judgment.	Defendants argue plaintiffs failed to exhaust and no exception applies.	Summary judgment reversed; genuine disputes and unavailability/retaliation exceptions apply.

Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (PLRA requires exhaustion of remedies that are "available" and identifies unavailability exceptions)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion requirement under PLRA)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper‑exhaustion doctrine)
Thaddeus‑X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (retaliation standard: deterrence of a person of ordinary firmness)
Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 766 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2014) (officials’ actions can render remedies functionally unavailable)
Reed‑Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010) (prison officials waive procedural defaults by addressing grievances on the merits)
Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (administrative remedies unavailable where officials inaccurately describe steps or withhold forms)