Martin v. James
1:16-cv-00114
| W.D. Ky. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Chad Allen Martin, a pretrial detainee at Warren County Regional Jail, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: (1) he was tazed on Aug. 22, 2015 while handcuffed to a restraint chair; (2) he was sprayed with mace and tazed on Dec. 22, 2015; and (3) he was moved to cellblock H-7 on June 17, 2016 and assaulted twice, suffering facial and hand injuries.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Martin failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA for the Aug. and Dec. 2015 incidents and failed to appeal the denial of his June 2016 grievance.
- Martin responded that he could not file grievances while on suicide watch because inmates on suicide watch lack pens/paper; he sought discovery (suicide-watch logs) to support this claim and challenged the grievance form’s apparent lack of an appeal box.
- Defendants produced the jail’s Inmate Rules (signed by Martin), a June 19, 2016 grievance form (with a stated 48-hour appeal right), and an affidavit from Chief Deputy Jailer Causey stating inmates on suicide watch can request supervised access to grievance forms/writing utensils and that Martin did not file grievances for the Aug. and Dec. incidents and did not appeal the June grievance.
- The court found Defendants presented adequate summary-judgment proof that WCRJ had an available grievance process, Martin knew of it, and Martin failed to properly exhaust as to the Aug. and Dec. incidents and failed to appeal the June 2016 grievance.
- Conclusion: Summary judgment granted for Defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin exhausted administrative remedies for the Aug. 22, 2015 tazing | Martin says he could not file because he was on suicide watch and lacked writing materials | WCRJ: suicide-watch inmates may request supervised access to grievance forms; Martin did not file any grievance for Aug. 22 | Not exhausted — summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether Martin exhausted administrative remedies for the Dec. 22, 2015 mace/taze incident | Same suicide-watch inability claim | WCRJ: Martin did not file a grievance about Dec. 22; grievance process was available and known | Not exhausted — summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether Martin properly exhausted his June 2016 claim (failure to appeal) | Martin contends the attached grievance form lacks an appeal process and/or he was prevented by suicide-watch restrictions | WCRJ: form and inmate rules state a 48-hour appeal to the Jailer; Martin did not appeal; suicide-watch inmates may request supervised grievance access | Not exhausted — Martin failed to appeal initial response; summary judgment for Defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden and failure-of-proof rule)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standard for granting summary judgment when record could not lead a reasonable jury to find for nonmoving party)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA requires "proper" exhaustion complying with procedural rules)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; grievance-system rules define proper exhaustion)
- Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305 (inmate must complete all steps of grievance process; cannot abandon process and claim exhaustion)