Lanaghan v. Koch
902 F.3d 683
7th Cir.2018Background
- Lanaghan, an inmate at Oshkosh, developed severe Dermatomyositis/Polymyositis in November–December 2011, becoming largely incapacitated and hospitalized twice for extended periods.
- While physically unable to write, Lanaghan attempted on December 20, 2011 to have fellow inmate Audie Draper help him draft an inmate complaint in the dayroom; no usable tables were available and officers Koch and Chase denied access to study tables.
- Lanaghan was hospitalized again on December 28, 2011 and did not attempt another grievance after returning to Oshkosh in March 2012; he filed an institutional complaint in July 2012 which was rejected as untimely.
- The district court held a Pavey evidentiary hearing and concluded Lanaghan failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA, finding the grievance process remained available and dismissing the § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit examined whether the grievance process was actually available to Lanaghan given his incapacitation and the prison staff’s enforcement of study-table rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" under the PLRA | Lanaghan: physically unable to draft file within 14 days because officers denied access to table and assistance, rendering remedy unavailable | Defendants: grievance process was available; he could have waited, returned after hospitalization, or consulted the Administrative Code/library | Court: Remedy was unavailable — his incapacity plus denial of access made timely filing impossible and handbook concealed the good-cause exception |
| Whether prison staff engaged in affirmative misconduct is required to show unavailability | Lanaghan: need not show affirmative misconduct if physically unable to access procedure through no fault of his own | Defendants: argued absence of affirmative misconduct supports availability | Court: Affirmative misconduct not required; availability is an objective inquiry focusing on whether inmate could access procedure |
| Whether inmate handbook’s unqualified 14-day rule foreclosed later filing | Lanaghan: handbook omitted the good-cause exception, so he lacked notice that late filing might be permitted | Defendants: handbook references Chapter 310 and library where code is available | Court: Handbook’s unqualified 14-day rule concealed the good-cause exception; mere citation to code did not make exception effectively available |
| Burden of proof on exhaustion | Lanaghan: defendants must prove that remedies were available and exhausted | Defendants: asserted exhaustion defense | Court: Affirmed that burden is on defendants; they failed to show availability |
Key Cases Cited
- Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court must hold evidentiary hearing when exhaustion is contested)
- Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (remedy unavailable where prison employees use affirmative misconduct to prevent exhaustion)
- Hurst v. Hantke, 634 F.3d 409 (7th Cir. 2011) (remedy not available to a person physically unable to pursue it)
- Pyles v. Nwaobasi, 829 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2016) (remedies that are genuinely unavailable need not be exhausted)
- Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006) (availability of grievance remedies is fact-specific; not always binary)
- White v. Bukowski, 800 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2015) (prisoners must exhaust procedures they were told about, not procedures concealed from them)
- Swisher v. Porter County Sheriff's Dept., 769 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2014) (inmate need not file a written grievance when officials instruct otherwise and fail to inform about formal procedures)
- Wilborn v. Ealey, 881 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2018) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error and exhaustion determinations de novo)