Lee Cantwell v. Leisa Sterling
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9810
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Lee Cantwell, a Texas prisoner, sued prison officials under § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Cantwell failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
- It was undisputed Texas uses a two-step grievance process; Cantwell testified he filed a step-one grievance and received no response, so he did not pursue step two.
- Defendants failed to introduce the prison grievance procedures in force at the relevant time and place into the record.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Fifth Circuit found the record inadequate to resolve exhaustion and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cantwell exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA | Cantwell filed a step-one grievance and, after receiving no response, was excused from further steps | Cantwell did not complete the two-step grievance process and thus failed to exhaust | Court held record insufficient to determine exhaustion; defendants bore burden to prove non-exhaustion and did not present applicable grievance procedures |
| Whether the district court properly discredited Cantwell’s sworn testimony about filing a grievance | Cantwell offered sworn testimony under penalty of perjury that he filed and received no response | District court treated statements as conclusory and unsupported | Court held the district court erred; sworn testimony must be credited on summary judgment unless contradicted |
| What standard governs when a prison's failure to respond excuses further exhaustion | Cantwell relied on precedent that non-response can exhaust remedies depending on prison procedures | Defendants relied on a strict two-step requirement regardless of response | Court noted exhaustion is defined by the prison’s own procedures and outcomes depend on those specific rules; record lacked those procedures |
| Whether judicial notice of current online grievance procedures suffices for past practices | Cantwell argued past procedures control; current website may differ | Defendants pointed to Texas’s published procedures online | Court held taking judicial notice of the current website was improper because the relevant procedures must be those in force at the time of the events, which were not in the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (in forma pauperis standards on appeal)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; prison’s procedures define exhaustion)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (defendant bears burden to prove failure to exhaust)
- Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001) (courts cannot alter prison grievance systems)
- Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010) (prison procedural requirements define exhaustion steps)
- Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2005) (courts may take judicial notice of state websites in limited circumstances)
- Ion v. Chevron USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2013) (sworn statements may be credited on summary judgment)
- Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998) (non-response to grievance can equate to exhaustion when procedures impose response deadlines without further required steps)
- Wilson v. Epps, 776 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2015) (prison’s failure to respond can, in some circumstances, result in deemed exhaustion)