Louis Ray Gilbeau, Jr. v. Dept. of Corrections and Centurion Medical Services, 2016-236

Plaintiff (inmate) filed a pro se emergency petition on Jan 11, 2016 seeking injunctive relief after Southern State Correctional Facility (SSCF) medical staff stopped providing a tomato-free diet previously provided at Northern State Correctional Facility (NSCF).
Plaintiff alleged NSCF doctors had ordered a tomato-free diet for GERD; SSCF staff refused to continue it unless plaintiff submitted to allergy testing, which he declined.
Defender General’s Office counsel later appeared and the petition was converted to a complaint under V.R.C.P. 75; defendants (DOC and Centurion) moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under DOC grievance procedures.
Plaintiff amended his complaint and requested discovery or an exemption from exhaustion because DOC’s own medical staff had previously approved the diet.
The superior court granted defendants’ motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction because plaintiff had not exhausted DOC’s grievance process and declined to exempt him from the exhaustion requirement.
Plaintiff appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding exhaustion required and no futility or other exemption shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should hear suit despite plaintiff not exhausting DOC grievance procedures	Exhaustion unnecessary because DOC doctors already approved tomato-free diet; re-doing process serves no purpose	Plaintiff failed to pursue available administrative remedies; dismissal warranted for lack of jurisdiction	Dismissal affirmed: exhaustion required; no exemption shown
Whether health-care decisions are exempt from grievance process	Continuation of DOC-approved medical care should not require grievance after transfer	Health-care matters fall within DOC grievance procedures and may be revisited by facilities	Court: health-care issues are not excluded from grievance process
Whether futility or other equitable exemption applies	Exhaustion would be futile because approval already existed and delay harms plaintiff	No clear futility; factual uncertainties warranted administrative resolution first	Court: no demonstrated futility; discretion to require exhaustion was proper
Whether plaintiff should be allowed discovery before dismissal	Requested discovery to develop factual record about approvals and basis for denial	Defendants argued jurisdictional dismissal appropriate without such discovery	Court considered record and affirmed dismissal; discovery not required before enforcing exhaustion rule

Jordan v. State, 166 Vt. 509 (1997) (establishes rule that failure to exhaust administrative remedies permits dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
Conley v. Crisafulli, 188 Vt. 11 (2010) (standard of review for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; courts may consider evidence outside pleadings)
Stone v. Errecart, 165 Vt. 1 (1996) (recognizes futility-based exemptions to exhaustion are governed by judicial discretion)
Rennie v. State, 171 Vt. 584 (2000) (mem.) (administrative exhaustion ensures matters are fully developed before courts intervene)