Richards v. Hogans
3:15-cv-00839
S.D. Miss.Apr 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Richards, a pro se, in forma pauperis prisoner, sued multiple EMCF staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations arising from living conditions and several Rules Violation Reports (RVRs) issued in August–October 2015.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing Richards failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to seven specific RVR-related claims (four RVRs from August 6–7, 2015 and three later RVRs), pointing to ARP records showing related grievances were untimely or not filed.
- Richards did not file a written response but testified at an Omnibus Hearing that his caseworker delayed providing copies of RVRs (which must be attached to appeals), causing untimely ARP submissions; he also alleged hearings were biased and some RVRs were falsified.
- The ARP coordinator submitted affidavits showing the grievances EMCF-15-2245 and EMCF-15-2246 were submitted more than 15 days after receipt of the RVRs and were rejected as untimely.
- The court considered PLRA exhaustion rules and Fifth Circuit exceptions where officials interfere with grievance pursuit; because Richards alleged caseworker interference, the court declined to grant summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.
- Separately, the court held that even if considered, the disciplinary results (loss of privileges, possible reclassification) did not implicate a protected liberty interest under Sandin, so due-process claims tied solely to those RVRs were dismissed; official-capacity claims were dismissed because MTC (the employer) was not named and no municipal/custom theory was pled. Plaintiff was given 30 days to provide a current address for an unserved defendant (Roberts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richards exhausted available administrative remedies for specified RVR-related claims | Richards contends his caseworker delayed providing RVR copies, which prevented timely ARP appeals | ARP records show grievances were rejected as untimely or not filed; exhaustion is mandatory | Court declined to grant summary judgment on exhaustion because Richards alleged official interference sufficient to warrant factual inquiry |
| Whether due-process claims based on RVR convictions state a constitutional violation | Richards alleges hearings were biased and RVRs falsified, resulting in loss of privileges or reclassification | Defendants argue punishments (30-day loss of privileges, possible reclassification) do not implicate a protected liberty interest | Court held loss of privileges and reclassification do not rise to atypical and significant hardship under Sandin; due-process claims related to the listed RVRs dismissed |
| Whether official-capacity § 1983 claims against defendants can proceed | Richards sued individual staff in official capacities alleging constitutional violations | Defendants note MTC (private employer) is not a governmental entity and plaintiff alleges no custom/policy causing violations | Court dismissed all official-capacity claims because they were effectively suit against a non-named, non-governmental employer and no policy/custom was alleged |
| Service on unserved defendant (Roberts) | Richards has not provided current address for service | Defense provided last known address; marshal could not effect service | Court ordered Richards to provide Roberts’s current address within 30 days or face dismissal of claims against Roberts |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (PLRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing suit)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion is mandatory for all inmate suits about prison life)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; courts cannot excuse failure to exhaust)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interests protected by due process are limited to atypical and significant hardships)
- Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464 (1985) (official-capacity suits are against the governmental entity itself)
- Gonzales v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (pre-filing exhaustion is mandatory and district courts lack discretion to excuse failure to exhaust)