Patrick Mullinnex . v. Lisa Menard, 236 A.3d 171

Plaintiffs are Vermont DOC inmates with opioid-use disorder who allege the DOC’s medication-assisted treatment (MAT) program violates statutory standards (28 V.S.A. §§ 801, 801b).
DOC grievance rules require inmates to pursue an informal complaint, then formal grievance, then appeals (including to the Commissioner), and to exhaust administrative remedies before litigation.
Plaintiff Mullinnex filed grievance forms beginning Sept. 20, 2018, appealed to the corrections executive and to the Commissioner, and filed a civil action the same day he submitted the appeal to the Commissioner.
The superior court deemed Mullinnex to have exhausted, adopted the federal “vicarious-exhaustion” doctrine (one class member’s exhaustion suffices for the class), and certified parts of the class under V.R.C.P. 23.
Defendants appealed, arguing Mullinnex had not exhausted (he filed suit before agency response periods expired) and thus the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding Mullinnex failed to exhaust and did not qualify for exhaustion exceptions (unavailability or substantial compliance).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Mullinnex exhaust administrative remedies before suing?	Mullinnex filed the required grievance forms and appealed; DOC failed to respond, so exhaustion satisfied.	He filed the civil suit before waiting for agency responses and thus did not exhaust.	Mullinnex did not exhaust; trial court abused its discretion in deeming exhaustion satisfied.
Can vicarious exhaustion (one class member’s exhaustion binds the class) justify class filing?	Vicarious-exhaustion applies and Mullinnex’s grievances satisfy class exhaustion.	Even if doctrine recognized, it requires at least one class member to have exhausted; Mullinnex did not.	Court declined to rule on doctrinal adoption because no class member exhausted; doctrine inapplicable here.
Do exceptions to exhaustion (unavailability or substantial compliance) apply?	Mullinnex argued DOC was effectively unresponsive or he substantially complied.	DOC showed Mullinnex appealed prematurely and did not wait the prescribed response periods.	Exceptions do not apply on this record; plaintiff failed to show unavailability or substantial compliance.
Should the class certification under V.R.C.P. 23 be upheld?	Plaintiffs argued the class met numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.	Defendants argued Rule 23 requirements and exhaustion were not met.	Court did not reach Rule 23 merits because lack of exhaustion divested subject-matter jurisdiction; certification reversed.

Stone v. Errecart, 675 A.2d 1322 (discusses exhaustion as statutory vs. judge-made and governs exceptions)
Jordan v. State, 702 A.2d 58 (explains exhaustion protects agency authority and promotes judicial efficiency)
Pratt v. Pallito, 167 A.3d 320 (reiterates lack of exhaustion deprives court of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Luck Bros., Inc. v. Agency of Transp., 99 A.3d 997 (places burden on party seeking to bypass administrative remedies)
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (framework on judicial discretion when legislature hasn’t required exhaustion)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (addresses exhaustion standards under PLRA and related principles)
Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278 (example of federal vicarious-exhaustion doctrine)
Conley v. Crisafulli, 99 A.3d 677 (procedure for reviewing motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)