Riles v. Bannish
3:10-cv-00652
D. Conn.Sep 30, 2015Background
- Plaintiff (inmate) alleges Correctional Officer Michael Blue used excessive force on March 17, 2008, causing nasal fractures and related symptoms; he sued Blue and two medical defendants (Dr. Carson Wright and Dr. Mark Buchanan) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Immediately after the incident medical staff noted a bloody, slightly swollen nose; x‑rays later showed fractures of both nasal bones; plaintiff later reported loss of taste/smell and recurrent epistaxis.
- Dr. Wright treated plaintiff multiple times, ordered x‑rays, prescribed Motrin, and repeatedly requested outside ENT referral via the Utilization and Review Committee (URC).
- Dr. Buchanan, as URC head, denied Dr. Wright’s ENT referral requests but sought additional information and implemented alternative treatment plans (infirmary observation and URC review by a clinician with ENT training).
- Blue moved for summary judgment arguing non‑exhaustion under the PLRA; defendants Wright and Buchanan moved on deliberate indifference and qualified immunity grounds.
- Court: granted summary judgment. Excessive force claim against Blue dismissed without prejudice for failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies; deliberate indifference claims against Wright and Buchanan dismissed with prejudice for failure to show a constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for excessive force | Riles attempted to use the grievance process (including later filings) and was misled by officials; exhaustion should be excused | Blue: Riles failed to follow Administrative Directive 9.6 (no pre‑grievance Inmate Request Form; Level 1 grievance filed prematurely/untimely) | Riles did not properly exhaust; summary judgment for Blue on non‑exhaustion (claim dismissed without prejudice) |
| Estoppel from raising non‑exhaustion | Prison officials misled Riles by not notifying procedural defects and marking a later grievance as "exhausted" | Officials argue there was no affirmative interference preventing exhaustion; the marking showed untimeliness, not waiver | Court: no estoppel—no evidence of affirmative interference; estoppel not established |
| Special‑circumstances excuse for non‑exhaustion | Riles reasonably (but mistakenly) believed a verbal complaint and assurances satisfied the informal resolution requirement | Defendants: Administrative Directive 9.6 plainly requires written Inmate Request Form and timely Level 1 filing; Riles is familiar with grievance rules | Court: no special circumstances—Riles’ interpretation was not a reasonable construction of the rules; excuse rejected |
| Deliberate indifference by doctors for medical care after nasal fractures | Wright failed to provide adequate pain control and timely ENT referral; Buchanan denied ENT requests showing indifference | Doctors: medical records show Motrin prescribed; Wright exercised medical judgment; Buchanan sought additional info and adopted non‑referral treatment plans | Court: no genuine dispute of fact that doctors acted with subjective deliberate indifference; summary judgment for Wright and Buchanan (dismissed with prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (exhaustion required for inmate suits about prison life)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (grievance process rules, not PLRA, define exhaustion procedures)
- Ruggiero v. County of Orange, 467 F.3d 170 (estoppel requires affirmative actions preventing grievance)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (three‑part test for excusing exhaustion: availability, estoppel, special circumstances)
- Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37 (informal notice does not satisfy PLRA exhaustion)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (look to institutional grievance rules to assess exhaustion)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference test: objective and subjective components)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine issue standard)
- Hernandez v. Coffey, 582 F.3d 303 (proper exhaustion requires using all agency steps and doing so properly)