Pavey v. Conley
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23318
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Pavey suffered a broken left arm in October 2001 after prison officials removed him from his cell.
- The Indiana grievance process requires a written complaint to the grievance specialist within 48 hours, with assistance allowed if the inmate cannot write.
- Pavey did not submit a timely written complaint, nor did anyone submit one on his behalf, within the 48-hour window.
- Pavey testified about interactions with Sergeant Nails, Lieutenant Surney, and Major Payne suggesting steps toward redress, but the specifics and timing are contested.
- The district court credited prison officials’ testimony over Pavey’s account, concluding he had not exhausted administrative remedies.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Pavey did not prove clear error in the district court’s credibility findings and that participation in an internal-affairs investigation did not exhaust remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pavey exhausted remedies under §1997e(a). | Pavey complied by seeking assistance and discussing the incident with staff. | Pavey failed to file within 48 hours and did not obtain help filing the proper form. | No exhaustion; district court did not clearly err in crediting witnesses over Pavey. |
| Does participation in an internal-affairs investigation exhaust administrative remedies. | Internal-affairs participation could fulfill exhaustion if related to grievance. | Internal affairs is not a substitute for the grievance process and does not exhaust §1997e(a). | Internal-affairs investigation does not exhaust remedies. |
| If staff misled an inmate about exhaustion, is the remedy available. | Staff assurances could excuse failure to file by misleading the inmate. | Misleading assurances do not negate the required procedural steps unless the inmate was told the remedy did not exist. | No misrepresentation found; pleadings do not show proper basis to excuse noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion requires proper adherence to procedural rules)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense borne by defendants)
- Panaro v. City of N. Las Vegas, 432 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal-affairs not substitute for grievance)
- Curtis v. Timberlake, 436 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal-affairs not exhaustion substitute; procedural rules matter)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (misleading descriptions of remedies can bar exhaustion)
- Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002) (reliance on misinformed staff about remedies not excusing noncompliance)
- Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (requires proper initiation of grievance within procedural rules)
- Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal-affairs not exhaustion substitute (abrogated on other grounds))