Robert Sealey v. Frank Busichio
696 F. App'x 779
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Sealey, a prisoner at Monroe Correctional Complex, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for prison personnel arising from his claim that staff denied pain medication and retaliated to deter grievances.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Sealey failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)).
- Sealey testified (sworn statement) that medical staff told him if he "caused any trouble about the medical care" he would be transferred to a facility with "really bad inmates" and receive no medical care; he said this statement deterred him from filing a grievance.
- Sealey offered other facts he contended showed retaliation: frequent/destructive cell searches, shortened visitation, less shower/movement time, and transfers of other inmates after filing grievances; some other inmates told him he would be transferred if he filed a grievance.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, evaluating whether Sealey’s fear of retaliation excused exhaustion under McBride v. Lopez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fear of retaliation excused failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Sealey says medical staff threatened transfer and no care, which actually deterred him from filing a grievance | Defendants say no objective basis shows a reasonable prisoner would be deterred; grievance system remained available | Held: Subjective prong met (Sealey sincerely believed and was deterred), but objective prong not met — no sufficient objective evidence of a threat tied to grievance use; exhaustion failure not excused |
| Whether statements by other inmates or observed transfers support objective fear | Sealey points to other inmates’ statements and observed transfers after grievances as evidence of risk | Defendants note Sealey offered no proof officials caused those transfers and inmate statements are insufficient | Held: Insufficient — objective prong requires actions/statements by officials, not other prisoners |
| Whether alleged retaliatory acts (searches, reduced privileges) create genuine dispute of retaliation motive | Sealey argues timing and presence of officers show retaliation for complaints | Defendants argue evidence is vague, speculative, and lacks specifics tying officers’ conduct to retaliation | Held: Insufficient — circumstantial evidence must be specific; Sealey’s evidence was too vague/speculative to create a triable issue |
| Whether continued filing of kites affects credibility of claimed deterrence | Sealey continued filing informal kites about medical care | Defendants argue ongoing kites undercut claim he was deterred from using grievance process | Held: Court noted continued kites weaken objective claim of deterrence; supports conclusion that grievance system was available |
Key Cases Cited
- McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2015) (describes subjective and objective two-prong test for fear-based excuse of exhaustion)
- Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) (examples of direct threats that may excuse exhaustion when sufficiently severe and tied to grievance use)
- McCollum v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 647 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2011) (circumstantial retaliation evidence must be specific to survive summary judgment)
- Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2001) (pure speculation without personal-knowledge basis is insufficient evidence)