Mark Hammett v. J. Cofield
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12150
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hammett, an MDOC inmate, sued MDOC officials and medical staff under § 1983 alleging deficient medical care, retaliation, and harassment.
- The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust under PLRA § 1997e(a).
- MDOC’s three-step grievance process requires IRR, grievance, and grievance appeal with seven-day deadlines at each step.
- Hammett filed seven IRRs with supporting documents; three were fully exhausted per merits-based appeals.
- The district court dismissed claims tied to five IRRs (three fully exhausted, four not properly exhausted) and found retaliation/harassment claims unexhausted due to procedural barriers.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed in part, holding that procedural flaws do not bar exhaustion if the merits were reached, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any of Hammett’s IRRs were fully exhausted despite procedural flaws. | Hammett argues three IRRs were exhausted because merits were addressed. | Defendants contend several IRRs were not properly exhausted due to untimely or missing steps. | Three IRRs were fully exhausted; dismissal improper as to those claims. |
| Whether retaliation/harassment claims are exhausted when procedural barriers exist. | Retaliation occurred via officials blocking grievances; remedies unavailable. | No availability absent proper procedures; exhaustion required. | Retaliation/harassment claims properly dismissed without prejudice for non-exhaustion. |
| Whether procedural deficiencies can be overlooked if the merits were reached by the agency. | Agency decision on the merits should count as exhaustion. | Exhaustion requires completion of all procedural steps. | Exhaustion satisfied when merits addressed, even if procedural flaws present. |
| Whether non-exhausted IRRs may be dismissed without prejudice while exhausted ones proceed. | All medical claims should survive if any IRR is exhausted. | Only exhausted claims survive; non-exhausted IRRs dismissed. | Unexhausted IRRs appropriately dismissed; exhausted ones proceed. |
| Whether remaining non-exhausted IRRs and duplicate complaints bar relief on those claims. | MDOC process was fair overall; multiple grievances argued. | Procedural flaws and duplications require dismissal of related claims. | Four non-exhausted IRRs properly dismissed; others denied on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion requires completing all steps and addressing merits)
- Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion via proper procedural compliance)
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (procedural flaws may be ignored if merits addressed by officials)
- Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010) (merits-based exhaustion applicable to procedural flaws)
- Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion satisfied when merits addressed notwithstanding defects)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion promotes agency record and institutional perspective)
- Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc rule: no retaliation-based barrier to exhaustion absent showing)