595 F. App'x 743
10th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Mario Anton Lee, a federal inmate at FCI Florence, filed a Bivens suit alleging an assault, restraint, and denial of medical care on Feb 8–9, 2013.
- BOP has a four-step administrative grievance process: informal resolution, institution (warden) filing, regional appeal, Central Office appeal; timeliness may be excused for valid reasons.
- Lee filed two Administrative Remedy Requests after the 20-day institutional deadline because staff were unavailable; the institution rejected them as untimely (and for procedural defects in one submission).
- The Regional Office and Central Office affirmed rejection but the Central Office asked Lee to supply staff verification explaining the delay and then told him to resubmit the Requests to the institution with those memos.
- Lee did not resubmit to the institution; instead he filed federal suit. The district court (adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation) granted defendants summary judgment for failure to exhaust and dismissed without prejudice. Lee appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee exhausted available administrative remedies before filing suit | Lee contends prison officials rendered remedies unavailable and he should be excused from exhaustion | Defendants argue Lee had not refilled his Requests at the institution as directed and thus did not exhaust | Court: No exhaustion; Lee had not resubmitted at the institutional level as required, so dismissal proper |
| Whether prison officials prevented or hindered exhaustion (rendering remedies unavailable) | Lee says staff unavailability and handling made the remedy unavailable | Defendants point to Central Office willingness to accept memos and clear instruction to refile at institution | Court: Remedies were available; record shows Central Office offered leniency and directed refiling; Lee failed to act, so unavailability not shown |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before granting summary judgment on exhaustion | Lee argues the court should have held a hearing to resolve factual disputes | Defendants rely on written record and summary judgment standards | Court: No hearing required; judge properly resolved the motion on submitted documents per summary judgment practice |
| Whether the court should have stayed the case to allow exhaustion instead of dismissing | Lee requests a 90-day stay to exhaust administratively | Defendants assert exhaustion is mandatory before suit and dismissal is proper | Court: No stay; under current §1997e(a) exhaustion is mandatory and dismissal without prejudice is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing Bivens damages action for federal officers' constitutional violations)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies for prisoner claims)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (requires proper exhaustion in compliance with grievance procedures)
- Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (inmate who begins but does not complete grievance process is barred)
- Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010) (officials who prevent or hinder exhaustion render remedies unavailable)
- Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2005) (failure to exhaust requires dismissal; exhaustion is often a curable procedural defect)
- Patel v. Fleming, 415 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2005) (discussing BOP program statement encouraging flexibility on timeliness for sensitive issues)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion requirement applies to prisoner suits prior to suit filing)
- Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 1997) (describing pre-PLRA practice of stays; abrogated on other grounds)
- Geear v. Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764 (10th Cir. 1988) (hearing requirement for summary judgment satisfied by review of submitted documents)