Michael Rinaldi v. United States
904 F.3d 257
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Michael Rinaldi, a federal inmate at USP Lewisburg, alleged staff retaliated by transferring him and assigning him a dangerous cellmate, resulting in assaults and emotional injury.
- He filed multiple BOP administrative filings: an initial "informal" complaint and formal appeal about an earlier cellmate (Cellmate #1); after transfer he filed a "Sensitive" complaint directly to the Regional Director about retaliation (it was rejected as procedurally improper); he incorporated claims about the new cellmate (Cellmate #2) into an appeal of the earlier assault grievance and the Regional Director denied the appeal on the merits.
- Rinaldi sued in federal court asserting First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect, and an FTCA negligence claim for cellmate placement; the District Court dismissed for failure to exhaust (PLRA) and held the FTCA claim barred by the discretionary-function exception.
- On appeal the Third Circuit reviewed: (1) what showing establishes that BOP remedies were not "available" under the PLRA; (2) whether an administrative decision on the merits can satisfy exhaustion when a prisoner failed to follow procedure; and (3) whether housing/cellmate assignments fall within the FTCA discretionary-function exception.
- The Third Circuit (Majority) adopted a two-part Turner test for intimidation-based unavailability (objective and subjective prongs), held that Rinaldi satisfied the objective prong about retaliation but remanded for factual finding on subjective deterrence, held the Eighth Amendment claim exhausted because the Regional Director denied it on the merits, and affirmed dismissal of the FTCA claim under the discretionary-function exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" under PLRA for Retaliation claim | Rinaldi: threats from staff and placement with a cellmate who threatened to kill him made filing at the institution unsafe, so remedies were unavailable | Gov: Rinaldi failed to follow BOP procedure by not refiling locally after the Sensitive claim was rejected, so no exhaustion | Court: Adopted Turner two-prong test (objective + subjective). Objective prong satisfied; remanded to determine subjective deterrence |
| Whether merits review by Regional Director cures procedural default (Eighth Amendment) | Rinaldi: raising Cellmate #2 assault in regional appeal and receipt of merits denial exhausted remedies | Gov: Claim was never presented at institution level so unexhausted | Court: Where the ultimate reviewer addressed the claim on the merits, exhaustion is satisfied; vacated dismissal and remanded on Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether cellmate/housing assignment claim falls within FTCA discretionary-function exception | Rinaldi: government negligence in placing him with known violent inmate should be actionable | Gov: Housing/cell assignment decisions involve judgment and institutional security; exception bars suit | Court: Affirmed District Court — both prongs of Gaubert/ Mitchell test met; discretionary-function exception applies |
| Standard and procedure for district courts resolving factual disputes on exhaustion | Rinaldi: factual finding required on subjective deterrence; court must give notice/opportunity to respond | Gov: exhaustion issues can be resolved on record and by summary judgment/dismissal | Court: Cites Paladino and Small — courts may resolve factual disputes but must give parties notice and opportunity to submit materials; remanded for subjective-determinative factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires "proper exhaustion")
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative remedies "unavailable" in limited categories, including intimidation)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (evaluate compliance with prison grievance procedures; prison officials may waive procedural defects)
- Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) (adopted two-prong subjective/objective test for intimidation-based unavailability)
- Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011) (endorsed Turner two-prong analysis)
- McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2015) (administrative remedies unavailable where officials' threats deter grievance filing)
- Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000) (administrative merits decision at highest level can waive exhaustion defense)
- Gaubert v. United States, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-prong test for FTCA discretionary-function exception)
- Mitchell v. United States, 225 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2000) (application of Gaubert test in this circuit)
- Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002) (officials' misleading instructions can render remedies unavailable)
- Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 831 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (remedies unavailable where prison failed to timely respond and ignored follow-up requests)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits)