Moliere Dimanche, Jr. v. Jerry Brown, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6339

Background

Dimanche, a Florida state inmate, sued 16 prison officials under § 1983 alleging retaliatory gassing with chemical agents, false disciplinary reports, threats, denial of medical care, and related Eighth, First, and due-process violations arising from a July 3, 2010 incident and subsequent events.
On April 15, 2011, while at Quincy Annex, Dimanche sent a grievance directly to the Florida DOC Secretary marked “Reprisal for grievances wrote,” describing the gassing, threats by high-ranking officers, and fear for his life, and requesting transfer.
The Secretary (via M. Solano) returned the grievance instructing Dimanche to pursue institutional-level informal and formal steps first and gave him 15 days to do so; Dimanche alleges he received that response after the 15 days expired and did not pursue institutional steps.
The district court dismissed Dimanche’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA and also dismissed for failure to state a claim without explanation; the magistrate had relied on evidence that Dimanche later filed multiple internal grievances.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit (Rosenthal, J., sitting by designation) held that Dimanche’s form satisfied Florida’s two requirements for filing a reprisal grievance directly to the Secretary (identifying it as a reprisal and clearly stating why institutional steps were bypassed), so the Secretary improperly returned it and Dimanche’s suit was not barred by failure to exhaust.
The court also reversed the district court’s unexplained dismissal for failure to state a claim, finding Dimanche’s allegations state plausible First and Eighth Amendment claims and possibly due-process claims and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dimanche exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA when he sent a reprisal grievance directly to the Secretary	Dimanche argued his April 15, 2011 form: (1) identified the complaint as a "grievance of reprisal" and (2) clearly explained why he bypassed institutional steps (fear of reprisal, involvement of high-ranking officers), satisfying Florida rules for direct filing	Defendants argued Dimanche failed to follow Florida’s three-step grievance process (informal → formal → Secretary) and that he therefore did not properly exhaust; district court relied on later-filed internal grievances to find the reprisal bypass unjustified	Held that Dimanche satisfied Florida’s reprisal-grievance requirements; the Secretary improperly returned the grievance; therefore failure to pursue institutional steps did not bar suit under the PLRA
Whether the three-step grievance process was unavailable or excused	Dimanche relied on fear of reprisal and allegations that high-ranking officials were involved to show institutional filing was unavailable/unsafe, warranting direct submission	Defendants relied on evidence that Dimanche subsequently filed several internal grievances, arguing the institutional process was available	Court did not need to resolve unavailability under Turner because the direct grievance met Florida’s reprisal exception; it noted the district court did not rely on the supplemental record and reversed
Whether the district court properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim	Dimanche contended his allegations plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment excessive use of chemical agents, First Amendment retaliation, denial of medical care, false disciplinary reports, and possibly atypical/ significant due-process deprivations	Defendants did not develop this argument on appeal; district court dismissed without explanation despite earlier finding allegations "generally sufficient"	Held dismissal for failure to state a claim was unexplained and improper; the complaint plausibly alleged First and Eighth Amendment claims and possibly due-process claims; reversed and remanded for further proceedings
Whether the PLRA requires grieving a breakdown in the grievance process	Dimanche argued the PLRA does not require grieving the Secretary’s improper return of a proper reprisal grievance	Defendants implicitly argued procedural noncompliance should bar suit	Held that the PLRA does not require inmates to grieve a breakdown in the grievance process; returning a proper direct reprisal grievance does not excuse exhaustion rules that were satisfied

Key Cases Cited

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires "proper exhaustion" complying with prison procedural rules)
Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) (two-step framework for exhaustion defenses and availability analysis)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (prisoner must complete administrative review as defined by prison rules)
Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (where state provides grievance procedure, inmate must exhaust it before § 1983)
Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007) (grievance substance can satisfy form requirements when clearly intended as a grievance)
Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2006) (First Amendment protects filing grievances; retaliation for grievances actionable)
Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318 (11th Cir. 1987) (Eighth Amendment prohibits use of chemical agents in quantities greater than necessary for safety)
McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999) (deliberate indifference may be shown by grossly inadequate medical care)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (due-process claim requires showing of atypical and significant hardship)