Negron-Cruz v. Dr. Almodovar
3:19-cv-02126
| D.P.R. | Feb 14, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Alexis Negron-Cruz, a federal inmate at MDC Guaynabo, sued the Medical Director (Dr. Almodovar), Kitchen Administrator (Mr. Padilla), and Facilities Manager (Ms. Marrero) alleging inadequate medical care, being fed expired food that caused illness, and exposure to toxic fumes from air-conditioning pipes.
- Complaint filed Dec. 12, 2019; plaintiff sought injunctive and monetary relief and was granted in forma pauperis status.
- Plaintiff admitted in his complaint that he did not use the institution’s formal grievance procedure and only sought informal resolution via written requests to staff.
- The PLRA requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies before filing suit; the BOP grievance process requires four levels of review.
- The court reviewed the complaint and found on its face that Plaintiff did not complete the required administrative steps, and therefore had not exhausted remedies.
- The court dismissed the complaint sua sponte for failure to exhaust under the PLRA and entered judgment on Feb. 14, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Negron exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA | Negron relied on informal written requests and did not complete formal grievance appeals | Defendants (and PLRA) require full exhaustion of the multi-step grievance process | Court held Negron did not exhaust; dismissal required |
| Whether court may dismiss sua sponte an IFP prisoner complaint for failure to exhaust where failure appears on face | N/A (no exhaustion claim argued) | Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense but may be enforced by court screening when apparent on complaint | Court held sua sponte dismissal appropriate and entered judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion required under PLRA)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion required even for damages claims)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (unexhausted claims cannot be brought)
- Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (futility is not an exception to exhaustion)
- Cruz-Berrios v. Gonzalez-Rosario, 630 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2010) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (IFP complaints may be dismissed if legally baseless)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (standards for dismissing frivolous IFP pleadings)
- United States v. Del Toro-Alejandre, 489 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2007) (district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to exhaust when apparent on face)
- Arroyo-Morales v. Administracion de Correccion, 207 F. Supp. 3d 148 (D.P.R. 2016) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory)