Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24694
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Williams, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, sued Officers Paramo, Olsen, and Marrero and the County of Los Angeles in 2012 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process and Eighth Amendment claims arising from rumors labeling her a sex offender and related threats.
- She alleged an R suffix on her file and threats by the Two-Five prison gang; she claimed attempts to file grievances were thwarted by staff,” and that Paramo dismissed or ignored her filings.
- The district court initially allowed IFP via the PLRA three-strikes exception by finding imminent danger, but later dismissed the case for failure to exhaust under §1997e(a) and Wyatt v. Terhune, later treating exhaustion as the dispositive issue.
- Defendants submitted declarations by prison officials about the grievance process but did not address Williams’s claims that staff prevented her complaints from being properly submitted.
- On appeal, Williams asserted continued imminent danger at CSP-Sac where she had been transferred, while Defendants argued no nexus existed between the prior danger and the new facility.
- The panel ultimately held Williams may proceed IFP on appeal, adopting a standard that imminent danger must be shown at the time of the notice of appeal and applying Andrews v. Cervantes to determine ongoing danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether three-strikes prisoners must show imminent danger at appeal | Williams contends ongoing danger suffices | Imminent danger must exist at time of appeal for IFP | Yes; ongoing danger required at appeal, Williams satisfied |
| Whether exhaustion was properly determined | Administrative remedies were unavailable due to staff blocking filings | Remedies available; Williams failed to exhaust | No; summary judgment improper; remand for exhaustion proceedings |
| Appropriate burden-shifting framework for exhaustion under Albino Hilao | Defendants failed to prove remedies unavailable | Defendants carried burden to show non-exhaustion | District court erred; remand for exhaustion under Albino/Hilao |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (imminent danger standard applied to appeal, ongoing danger allowed)
- Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883 (5th Cir. 1998) (imminent danger at time of notice of appeal required)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion requirement clarified; screening of meritless claims noted)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion procedures and administrative remedies emphasized)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (proper method to adjudicate exhaustion via summary judgment; burden-shifting)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (remand when record incomplete on exhaustion)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (availability of administrative remedies depends on practical availability)
- Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996) (perjury affidavit can support exhaustion-related assertions)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (facially pleaded claims; standard for pro se filings)
- Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2003) (on appeal, imminent danger standards discussed)
- Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (3d Cir. 2013) (imminent danger analysis on appeal cited)
- Hafed v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2011) (imminent danger on appeal addressed in other circuits)