56 F.4th 328
4th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Matthew Griffin, a Central Prison inmate, was involuntarily sedated by prison staff on November 27, 2015, after repeated complaints about his housing; he was injured when left unsupervised.
- Griffin filed a sedation grievance the same day; it was returned on November 30, 2015, because an earlier Kosher diet grievance (filed Oct. 27, 2015) remained pending in the prison system.
- The North Carolina grievance procedure at issue: three-step review (Steps 1–3), 90-day filing limit, a one-grievance-at-a-time rule, provisions for ‘‘de facto’’ denials, and inconsistent rules about automatic forwarding and use of Form DC-410.
- Griffin later filed an inadequate-care grievance (Jan. 4, 2016) that was accepted despite the preexisting Kosher grievance; the Kosher grievance was forwarded to Step 2 in February 2016 and appealed to Step 3 by Griffin; Griffin’s resubmitted sedation grievance (Apr. 29, 2016) was rejected as untimely.
- Griffin sued in federal court (June 2017) alleging deliberate indifference (§ 1983), ADA/Rehabilitation Act retaliation, and state negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Griffin failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" under the PLRA (Ross v. Blake test) | North Carolina’s grievance rules and their inconsistent administration (one-at-a-time rule, de facto denials, timing) made remedies unavailable — dead end/opaque/thwarted | Remedies remained available; Griffin could have appealed or dismissed the Kosher grievance and thereby filed the sedation grievance timely | Vacated & remanded: material factual disputes over availability preclude summary judgment |
| Whether the grievance process was ‘‘opaque’’ or amounted to active thwarting (appeals from de facto denials, automatic forwarding) | Process was internally contradictory and practically unknowable; inmates lacked means to appeal de facto denials or obtain DC-410 forms | Process provides appeal mechanisms and deadlines Griffin simply failed to use | Court found factual gaps about how appeals and de facto denials operate; remand for development of record |
| Whether the 90-day filing deadline was tolled (timeliness of resubmission) | The record suggests equitable tolling or an L-22 tracking form that preserves days remaining; resubmission could have been timely | No tolling applied; Griffin missed the statutory window | Unresolved: factual questions about tolling and forms (L-22) require further proceedings |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on exhaustion grounds | Summary judgment was premature given unresolved disputed facts about availability and procedure | Summary judgment proper because Griffin did not exhaust available remedies | Court held summary judgment was erroneous; vacated and remanded for further fact development |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (administrative remedies need not be exhausted if not meaningfully "available")
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion reduces and improves prisoner suits)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion requirement tied to remedies capable of granting relief)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Moss v. Harwood, 19 F.4th 614 (4th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for summary judgment in this Circuit)
- Eaton v. Blewett, 50 F.4th 1240 (9th Cir. 2022) (example of ‘‘Catch-22’’ where grievance process may be functionally unavailable)