Robert Small v. Whittick
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17739
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Small, a paraplegic pretrial detainee at CCCF, sues under §1983 for alleged unconstitutional conditions and medical mistreatment.
- Plaintiff filed fourteen incidents claims between 2004 and 2006, including excessive force, denial of medical care, and wheel chair issues.
- CCCF grievance procedures require filing a formal grievance within 15 days, with a process of review, potential appeal to the Warden, whose decision is final.
- District Court conducted an evidentiary exhaustion hearing, concluding most grievances were not exhausted; only one claimed incident was potentially exhausted.
- Court subsequently dismissed most claims for non-exhaustion and remanded only for two grievances where the record suggested non-decision responses left remedies unavailable.
- Court later clarified, on appeal, that exhaustion is a question of law resolved by judges, with factual inquiries as needed; some grievances failed due to noncompliance, while two incidents lacked decision responses and thus remedies were unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion is decided by a judge or a jury | Small argues for jury review per Seventh Amendment | Defendants contend exhaustion is a legal question for the court | Judicial, not jury, determination of exhaustion. |
| Whether Small substantially complied with CCCF grievance procedures | Small substantially complied for certain incidents | Most grievances failed to substantially comply | District Court erred in dismissing June 18 and June 28, 2005 grievances; remanded for further proceedings; others sustained. |
| Availability of administrative remedies for certain grievances | Remedies were available; non-decisions left remedies unexhausted | Remedies exhausted only with decisions and timely appeals | Remedies unavailable when responses were non-existent or non-decisions; reversed for those two grievances. |
| Whether non-appeals of undecided grievances bar exhaustion | Appeal requirement applies to decisions, not non-decisions | Appeals were required for exhaustion | Non-decision grievances cannot be deemed exhausted; vacate and remand as to those incidents. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; no total exhaustion rule)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion requires proper procedures and timing)
- Drippe v. Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2010) (exhaustion as a question of law (dicta) later adopted)
- Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2010) (jury trial not required for exhaustion; district court may resolve)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (substantial compliance standard for exhaustion)
- Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2000) (further guidance on exhaustion and availability)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion as threshold issue; court can resolve facts)
- Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002) (availability of administrative remedies and access)
- Messa v. Goord, 652 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional-like consideration of exhaustion)