Johnson v. Killian, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9874

Johnson, a Muslim inmate at FCI Otisville, challenged limits on congregational prayer under RFRA and First Amendment.
A 2005 grievance alleged prayer restrictions; Menifee denied it and Johnson exhausted appeals.
After Killian became warden in 2007, the policy restricting congregational prayer was renewed and strictly enforced.
Johnson did not file a new administrative grievance about Killian’s 2007 enforcement; his suit claimed ongoing policy effects.
District Court granted partial summary judgment: Johnson failed to exhaust PLRA remedies because 2005 grievance addressed different circumstances.
Appellate court vacated and remanded, holding that the 2005 grievance exhausted the continuing prayer-venue issue and required further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson exhausted under PLRA.	Johnson exhausted via 2005 grievance addressing ongoing prayer policy.	2005 grievance did not cover Killian-era 2007 conduct; not proper exhaustion.	Exhaustion satisfied; 2005 grievance covered continuing issue.
Scope of exhaustion for continuing prison conditions.	Continuing policy effects were within the same grievance.	Different timeframes and actors require new grievances.	Proper exhaustion required for continuing issue; 2005 grievance sufficient.
Effect of PLRA on summary judgment standard here.	Exhaustion should defeat summary judgment.	Exhaustion rules must be applied properly but can be decided on record.	PLRA exhaustion determined; remand for further proceedings.

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion required for all inmate suits)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion required)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (prison grievance rules define exhaustion; procedural requirements matter)
Johnson v. Rowley, 569 F.3d 40 (2010) (deferred to BOP grievance structure in Second Circuit)
Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011) (PLRA exhaustion aims to reduce inmate suits and encourage internal resolution)