Napier v. Laurel County
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2400
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Napier contracted MRSA at LCDC and underwent scrotectomy after treatment delays.
- He was released to home health care and later re-incarcerated at Marion facility, a private jail.
- Napier filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 federal claim alleging Eighth Amendment medical-care violations and related state claims.
- District court dismissed federal claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under PLRA; state claims dismissed without prejudice.
- The LCDC grievance policy required inmates to file grievances through jail channels; Napier had constructive notice but did not file any grievance.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding LCDC remedies were available and Napier failed to exhaust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is LCDC remedy availability satisfied? | Napier argues remedies were unavailable at Marion. | LCDC policy was available and transferable to Marion; Napier did not exhaust. | LCDC remedies were available; dismissal affirmed. |
| Does inter-facility transfer void exhaustion requirements? | Transfer to Marion rendered LCDC process unavailable. | Availability persists; transfer does not automatically render remedies unavailable. | Availability persists across facilities; Napier must exhaust. |
| Did Napier procced with affirmative efforts to exhaust under the policy? | Not alleged; Napier did not exhaust, but policy may be silent on inter-facility grievances. | No affirmative efforts were shown; policy is available and Napier did not attempt. | Napier failed to exhaust; summary judgment proper. |
| May a prisoner rely on a policy’s silence to avoid exhaustion? | Policy silence means remedies are unavailable. | Policy existence and evidence of availability foreclose that claim. | Availability determined; silence does not excuse non-exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court 2006) (exhaustion mandatory; remedies must be exhausted)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court 2007) (prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (Supreme Court 2001) (exhaustion required even where relief not available in prison system)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court 2006) (exhaustion mandatory; remedies must be exhausted)
- Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003) (inmate must attempt exhaustion under policy)
- Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102 (6th Cir. 1998) (exhaustion requirement applies to federal claims)
- Cox v. Mayer, 332 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2003) (PLRA exhaustion framework and availability considerations)