Patrick Jones v. James Sowell
680 F. App'x 350
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Patrick A. Jones, a federal prisoner, filed a Bivens suit alleging excessive force and failure to protect.
- He proceeded in forma pauperis and the defendants moved for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Jones claimed he could not restart the grievance process because Texas officials denied him required forms after a failed attempt to file a sensitive grievance.
- The record showed Jones was housed in Kentucky when he needed to restart the grievance process; he did not allege Kentucky officials blocked access.
- The district court dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust; it also denied Jones’s request for appointed counsel.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding Jones failed to show remedies were unavailable and that denial of counsel was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones exhausted available administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) | Texas officials denied forms so Jones could not restart the grievance process; remedies were unavailable | Remedies were available because Jones was in Kentucky when restart was required and he alleged no obstruction by Kentucky officials | Court held Jones failed to exhaust; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the exhaustion requirement is strictly applied | Jones argued unavailability excused exhaustion | Defendants argued strict application and requirement to exhaust all available remedies | Court applied § 1997e(a) strictly and required exhaustion |
| Whether to consider merits of Jones’s excessive-force claim given dismissal for exhaustion | Jones asked court to consider his complaint reading/misreading by district court | Defendants argued dismissal for nonexhaustion precluded reaching merits | Court declined to reach merits because dismissal for nonexhaustion was proper |
| Whether denial of appointed counsel was an abuse of discretion | Jones requested counsel due to factual issues | Defendants supported denial as case was fact-dependent but not complex | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion; counsel not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (prisoner exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a))
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (interpretation and strict application of exhaustion rule)
- Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1987) (standards for appointment of counsel in prison suits)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBI, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (basis for damages action against federal officers)