Perttu v. Richards, 145 S.Ct. 1793

Kyle Richards, a Michigan inmate, alleged prison employee Thomas Perttu sexually harassed him and destroyed his attempts to file grievances, retaliating against Richards for doing so.
Richards sued Perttu under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming violations of his constitutional rights, including his First Amendment right to file grievances.
Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing Richards failed to exhaust prison grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing (no jury) and found Richards’ witnesses not credible, recommending dismissal for failure to exhaust; the district court agreed.
The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding a jury trial is required under the Seventh Amendment when factual disputes about exhaustion are intertwined with the merits of the constitutional claim.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split over whether PLRA exhaustion disputes intertwined with merits require a jury trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there a right to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when the issue is intertwined with the merits?	Intertwined factual disputes must be heard by a jury under the 7th Amendment.	Exhaustion is an affirmative defense that can be resolved by a judge even if tied to merits.	Yes; where exhaustion disputes overlap with merits of a claim triable by jury, a jury trial is required.
Can statutory silence in the PLRA on jury trials be read as allowing courts to require a jury?	Congress legislates against common-law practices that favor jury trials for such disputes.	PLRA silence does not create a jury trial right and prior practice allows judges to resolve exhaustion.	PLRA's silence means default practice applies: intertwined factual issues go to a jury.
Does the 7th Amendment require a jury trial on all exhaustion disputes?	Yes, especially where fact issues overlap with merits.	No, and no historical or precedential basis for intertwinement requiring juries.	The Court sidestepped the broad constitutional question, resolving only the intertwined context.
Is Beacon Theatres' intertwinement principle applicable?	Yes, as both exhaustion and merits share common factual issues; legal claims should go to jury.	No, Beacon Theatres is about estoppel, not exhaustion/merits overlap, and doesn't apply here.	Yes, Beacon Theatres supports jury trials where resolving one issue could otherwise preclude a jury trial on merits.

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion is an affirmative defense subject to usual federal practices)
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) (when legal and equitable claims share factual issues, legal claims go to jury)
Smithers v. Smith, 204 U.S. 632 (1907) (factual disputes intertwined with merits should not be decided summarily by the judge)
Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 (1947) (when jurisdictional disputes are intertwined with merits, merits should go to trial)
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024) (right to jury trial should be protected carefully)