Pyles v. Nwaobasi
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13344
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pyles, an Illinois state prisoner, sued Wexford doctors Nwaobasi and Shearing under § 1983 for allegedly inadequate treatment after a 2009 back injury.
- Illinois prison grievances require a three-step process; step-two written grievances must be filed within 60 days unless there is "good cause."
- Pyles filed a step-one grievance about Nwaobasi on November 13, 2012; he waited for the law library to photocopy the grievance and only received the copy on January 3, 2013 (two days after the 60-day deadline) and submitted it that day.
- Pyles filed a step-two grievance about Shearing on March 27, 2013; prison records show the grievance was received and denied, but there is no record the decision was sent to or received by Pyles, and Pyles testified he never got a response.
- The magistrate judge and district court held Pyles failed to exhaust administrative remedies for both grievances and recommended summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pyles showed "good cause" to excuse a two-day late step-two filing for the Nwaobasi grievance | Library delay in photocopying prevented timely filing; Pyles acted promptly when copy returned | Strict exhaustion required; prisoner should have filed differently or anticipated delay | Court: Good cause; delay outside Pyles's control, defendants failed to rebut diligence |
| Whether Pyles exhausted administrative remedies for the Shearing grievance when he never received a step-two response | Pyles never received the grievance officer’s response and thus had no available remedy to appeal | Prison records show receipt and denial; magistrate found Pyles not credible | Court: Defendants failed to prove response was sent/received; Pyles exhausted available remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (procedure for evidentiary Pavey hearing on PLRA exhaustion)
- Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (prison officials’ mishandling of a properly submitted grievance can render remedies unavailable)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies)
- Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2011) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; defendants bear burden to prove failure to exhaust)