Paul Shifflett v. Mr. Korszniak, 934 F.3d 356

Background

In April 2016 plaintiff Paul Shifflett, then an inmate at SCI Graterford, suffered a broken jaw in an inmate assault and underwent surgery at Temple University Hospital. Postoperative care allegedly left him in severe pain and with inadequate corrective surgery.
From May–July 2016 Shifflett submitted multiple medical and dental sick-call requests and four formal grievances (Nos. 625021, 626028, 628368, 628417) complaining of untreated pain, insufficient medication, and disagreement among providers about responsibility for care.
The Facility-level responses to his first two grievances were signed May 27 but the official appeal response was not issued within the 15 working‑day period required by DC‑ADM 804; the appeal responses arrived late (July 27) and stated the delay would not affect appeal rights.
Shifflett filed secondary appeals on June 12; one set of final appeals was rejected in October as untimely and for missing attachments. He continued to receive sporadic care and underwent additional procedures through September–November 2016.
Shifflett sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation against several prison medical staff and outside doctors. The district court dismissed all claims principally for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and also for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim; it denied leave to amend.
The Third Circuit reversed as to exhaustion of the Eighth Amendment claims, held the retaliation claim unexhausted, vacated the denial of leave to amend, and remanded with instructions to appoint counsel under Tabron and allow amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shifflett exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA	He properly exhausted when the prison failed to respond to his properly filed grievance appeals within the 15 working‑day time limit, rendering remedies "unavailable"	That plaintiff’s later-filed secondary appeals were procedurally defective (untimely and missing attachments), so he failed to comply with grievance rules and did not exhaust	Court held that a prison’s failure to timely respond to a properly filed grievance makes administrative remedies unavailable; Shifflett exhausted on July 1 when the response was overdue.
Applicability to First Amendment retaliation claim	Retaliation claim arises from the transfer and purported denial of a medical hold; plaintiff argued ongoing litigation and grievances encompassed retaliation	Defendants argued exhaustion defect and substantive insufficiency; district court dismissed retaliation for lack of grievance and lack of personal involvement	Court affirmed dismissal with prejudice: retaliation claim was not the subject of any grievance and no adequate allegation of fear of reprisal; exhaustion failed.
Whether dismissal without leave to amend was proper	Shifflett sought leave to amend if exhaustion ruled satisfied	Defendants argued amendment would be futile because complaint failed to state Eighth Amendment claims (only negligence/malpractice)	Court vacated denial of leave to amend, noting Rule 15 favors amendment and that exhaustion defect (the district court’s reason for denying amendment) was cured.
Whether appointment of counsel under Tabron was required	Plaintiff (indigent) requested counsel for complex case involving multiple defendants and likely need for medical expert testimony	Defendants opposed appointment absent meritorious claim	Court remanded with instruction to appoint counsel under Tabron given complexity, potential merit, and likely need for expert assistance.

Key Cases Cited

Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 831 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (held a prison’s failure to timely respond can render administrative remedies unavailable)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion is an affirmative defense and exhaustion is required for prisoner suits)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires "proper exhaustion"—compliance with an agency’s procedural rules)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative remedy is not "available" when procedure is a dead end, opaque, or administrators thwart use)
Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (standards for appointment of counsel for indigent civil litigants)
Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 1999) (providing some treatment does not necessarily defeat deliberate‑indifference claim)