Mark Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13650
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 9, 2009 Robinson, an inmate at SCI Rockview, alleges Lieutenant Fink twisted his arm causing injury; he sought medical care and later sued for excessive force.
- DOC had two reporting tracks: an Abuse Policy (reports to staff or OPR, investigated by Security/OPR) and a formal Grievance Policy requiring Form DC-804 within 15 working days and providing deadlines for responses and appeals.
- Robinson filed Abuse-form reports (DC-135A) on Oct. 9–10 and a formal grievance (DC-804) on Oct. 21, 2009; the Facility Grievance Coordinator logged it and assigned a Grievance Officer with an internal response due Nov. 10.
- The prison did not timely respond; Robinson submitted multiple follow-up DC-135A notices in Jan. 2010 threatening to proceed; he filed suit on Feb. 5, 2010 before receiving a decision.
- SCI Rockview belatedly responded on Mar. 17, 2010 (after suit), denying the claim but referencing a different incident; Robinson exhausted the remaining appeals after filing suit and SOIGA issued a final denial in July 2010.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Fink for failure to exhaust; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether the prison’s delay rendered remedies "unavailable" under the PLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | Fink/SCI Rockview's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robinson exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA before suing | Robinson argued he properly filed grievance and followed up; prison’s failure to respond by its own deadlines and ignoring follow-ups made remedies "unavailable," excusing exhaustion | Prison argued grievances were pending, responses were eventually issued, and Robinson filed suit before administrative process concluded, so he failed to exhaust | Court held the prison’s repeated, untimely failures to respond rendered administrative remedies unavailable, so Robinson is excused from strict exhaustion and may proceed to litigate his claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; prisoners must complete admin process in accordance with prison rules)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with agency deadlines and critical procedural rules)
- Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002) (admin remedies are "available" only if "capable of use; at hand," and officials who thwart efforts render remedies unavailable)
- Small v. Camden Cty., 728 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013) (when prison gives no decision and rules bar appeal from a non-decision, the appeals process is unavailable)
- Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999) (administrative remedies deemed exhausted when a valid grievance is filed and the state’s time to respond expires)
- Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001) (prisoner not required to satisfy next-step prerequisites when prison fails to respond to prerequisite informal review)