Robert Downey v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor
968 F.3d 299
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- Robert Downey, incarcerated at SCI Waymart from 2013–2017, suffered rapidly worsening glaucoma; ophthalmologists repeatedly advised urgent surgery to prevent blindness.
- Despite medical approvals for expedited surgical intervention in early 2015, scheduling stalled for roughly a year; surgeries ultimately occurred too late and Downey became blind.
- While incarcerated he used sick calls and inmate-staff request forms to seek care but did not pursue the formal DC-ADM 804 grievance steps for monetary relief.
- After release he filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania law naming DOC officials and medical providers; the district court granted summary judgment, finding failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
- The Third Circuit reversed as to the Medical Defendants (holding exhaustion was not required here) but affirmed dismissal of claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and its officials on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Downey failed to exhaust PLRA administrative remedies before suing for money damages | Exhaustion excused because his glaucoma was an urgent/emergency condition and he repeatedly contacted staff; moreover, he filed an amended/supplemental complaint after release that relates back | Normal grievance rules required and Downey did not follow them; post-release amended complaint cannot cure non-exhaustion | Court: Exhaustion not required — urgent/emergency exemption applied and the post-release amended complaint that relates back cures any procedural defect (per Garrett) |
| Whether the DC-ADM 804 emergency/urgent exception applies to severe progressive medical conditions | Urgency includes rapidly deteriorating medical conditions requiring immediate attention; contacting nearby staff suffices instead of formal grievance | Exception limited to clear sudden emergencies (e.g., heart attack, stroke); does not excuse filing if seeking monetary relief | Court: DC-ADM 804 exempts "incidents of an urgent or emergency nature"; severe glaucoma qualified and Downey complied by repeatedly contacting staff |
| Whether an amended complaint filed after release cures pre-release failure to exhaust | Post-release amended complaint that relates back removes PLRA prisoner-status exhaustion requirement (Garrett) | Defendants argue Garrett should not apply or be limited; amended complaint timing cannot erase the prior failure to exhaust | Court: Follows Garrett — because Downey filed the SAC after release and it relates back, PLRA exhaustion does not bar his claims |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars claims against DOC and its officials in official capacity | Plaintiff argued immunity was waived or inapplicable | DOC argued Eleventh Amendment bars retrospective monetary relief against the state and its officials | Court: Affirmed dismissal as to DOC Defendants — Pennsylvania did not waive immunity for federal suits and § 1983 does not abrogate sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion in accordance with prison procedural rules)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense for defendants to plead and prove)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (prisoners must exhaust available remedies; remedies that are unavailable need not be exhausted)
- Shifflett v. Korszniak, 934 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2019) (administrative remedies unavailable when process is a dead end, opaque, or thwarted; strict compliance by officials required)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (exhaustion measured against prison grievance policy; statutory construction of grievance rules)
- Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 2019) (an amended complaint filed post-release that relates back can cure pre-release PLRA exhaustion defects)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (Eleventh Amendment immunity is jurisdictional and need not be raised below)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (retroactive monetary relief against state officials in their official capacity is barred by Eleventh Amendment)
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979) (§ 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) (distinguishes availability of fee awards under § 1988 but does not overcome Eleventh Amendment bar)