John Lesesne v. John Doe
712 F.3d 584
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Lesesne alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs and IIED stemming from post-incident confinement conditions in D.C. facilities and medical care.
- He was not incarcerated when he filed his complaint, but the district court treated him under the PLRA exhaustion rule for prisoners.
- PLRA § 1997e(a) requires exhaustion only for prisoners confined when the action is filed; Lesesne did not meet this condition at filing.
- The District moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; Lesesne sought to amend and argued special circumstances and unavailability of remedies.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the District on exhaustion grounds and dismissed the IIED claim as futile or unsupported.
- The D.C. Circuit granted briefing by amicus and reviewed de novo, deciding the exhaustion issue is antecedent and merits reversal as to federal claims; IIED claim abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLRA exhaustion applies to non-prisoners? | Lesesne was not a prisoner when filing. | Exhaustion applies only to prisoners at filing. | PLRA exhaustion not required; reverse on federal claims. |
| Should forfeiture bar consideration of PLRA argument? | Proper interpretation of when PLRA applies; no forfeiture due to release. | Lesesne forfeited by not raising in district court. | Court exercises discretion to decide the issue; not barred by forfeiture. |
| Abandonment of IIED claim on appeal? | Amicus brief and proposed amended complaint discuss IIED; should be considered. | IIED claim abandoned; no argument on appeal to reverse dismissal. | IIED claim abandoned; affirmed dismissal for IIED; reversed only federal claims on exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. D.C. Dep't of Corr., 145 F.3d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (cites the standard for processing prison conditions claims)
- U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (1993) (exemplar of Supreme Court authority on appellate reach and forfeiture exceptions)
- Prime Time Int'l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (extraordinary circumstances allow addressing issues not pressed below)
- Roosevelt v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 958 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (exceptional circumstances permitting consideration of novel federal questions on appeal)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (noting that procedural defenses cannot defeat the ends of justice when inapplicable)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976) (discusses exercise of discretion to resolve issues not raised below under special circumstances)