Messa v. Goord
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15322
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Messa, an inmate at Green Haven, was injured in a prison yard altercation and hospitalized for over a week.
- On November 17, 2003, Messa filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and related Eighth Amendment and due process violations.
- By 2007, only the excessive force claim remained; the district court granted summary judgment on exhaustion grounds under the PLRA.
- Messa admitted failure to file a grievance or pursue relief via DOCS's Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) but argued excuses–estoppel due to threats and language/illiteracy barriers.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on exhaustion on January 11, 2010, rejected the excuses, and dismissed the remaining claim without prejudice.
- An appeal followed; the Second Circuit affirmed, holding no right to a jury trial on exhaustion disputes under the PLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a Seventh Amendment jury trial right on exhaustion disputes | Messa argued the jury should decide exhaustion facts. | Defendants argued no jury trial right for exhaustion issues under PLRA. | No jury trial right; exhaustion issues are not jury-determined. |
| Whether Messa's non-exhaustion excuses were properly for jury adjudication or judicial administration | Excuses should be jury-determined. | Excuses are judicial, not jury-determined. | Excuses resolved by the court, not by a jury. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying adjournment for the exhaustion hearing | District court should have adjourned to permit further evaluation. | No abuse; hearing date reasonable given seven-year pendency. | No abuse; denial of adjournment upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drippe v. Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2010) (no jury right on exhaustion issues)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (no jury right on exhaustion disputes)
- Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion and timing considerations; jury not required)
- Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion as precondition to suit; district court role)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (unexhausted claims cannot be brought; PLRA preconditions)
- Gonzalez v. Hasty, 651 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 2011) (tolled exhaustion during mandatory process)
- Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) (comparison of statutes of limitations and exhaustion)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper administration of exhaustion process)