Marcus Brim v. Doug Welton
704 F. App'x 585
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Marcus M. Brim, an Ionia (Michigan) prison inmate, sued assistant resident unit supervisor Sherry Alexander and inspector Douglas Welton, alleging defendants failed to protect him from another prisoner.
- Brim filed a three-step MDOC grievance: his step-one grievance referred to an unnamed assistant resident unit supervisor in Unit 7; steps two and three identified Sherry Alexander by name. Each step was denied on the merits.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment. A magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgment as to Welton but granting it as to Alexander on the ground that Brim’s step-one grievance failed to name her, so he had not properly exhausted administrative remedies.
- The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed Alexander without prejudice, denied Brim’s reconsideration motion, and later dismissed the remaining claims after a stipulation regarding Welton.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether Brim exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA and MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130, which requires brief, concise facts and names of involved persons.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to Alexander, finding Brim’s grievances were addressed on the merits at all three steps and that his later identification of Alexander sufficed under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brim properly exhausted administrative remedies as to Alexander under the PLRA/MDOC policy | Brim argued his step-one grievance described an unnamed Unit 7 assistant supervisor and steps two and three identified Alexander, and prison officials addressed grievances on the merits | Alexander argued Brim failed to exhaust because he did not name her in the step-one grievance as required by the policy | Reversed: exhaustion satisfied because MDOC denied the grievance on the merits at all steps and later identification in appeals was sufficient under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Court, 628 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard and review are de novo)
- Mattox v. Edelman, 851 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2017) (MDOC grievance rule requires concise statement and names; exhaustion inquiry governed by whether grievance was denied on merits)
- Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010) (prisoner exhausted despite not naming individuals in initial grievance where the MDOC denied grievances on the merits)