Roy A. Smith v. Keith Butts, Jenny Gibson, Amber Berry, Misty Cecil, and Amie Williams
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 462
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Smith, an Indiana DOC inmate at New Castle, gave legal mail (a motion for extension of time and a petition for certiorari) to prison staff in late Dec. 2014 for mailing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Smith later asked staff (Jan. 4, 2015) to return his petition to correct an error and submitted a corrected petition; the motion for extension was mailed late and the Supreme Court clerk rejected Smith’s filings as untimely (letter dated Jan. 20, 2015; received Feb. 17, 2015).
- Smith filed informal and then formal grievances in Feb.–Mar. 2015 alleging mishandling of legal mail; grievance coordinator denied them as untimely (over 20 days after incident) and advised about the mailbox rule.
- Smith sued the Officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims) in June 2015; the Officials pleaded failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an affirmative defense.
- Trial court granted Officials’ summary judgment and denied Smith’s cross-motion, concluding Smith failed to exhaust and thus the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; Smith appealed.
- Court of Appeals held there are genuine disputes of material fact about (1) whether Smith timely exhausted (given he learned of the problem Feb. 17, 2015) and (2) whether Smith’s Jan. 4, 2015 request caused the mailing delay; court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Officials' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith exhausted DOC administrative remedies before filing § 1983 suit | Smith filed formal grievances within 20 days after he learned (Feb. 17, 2015) that mail was late, so he exhausted remedies | Formal grievances list Dec. 26, 2014 as incident date; Smith’s Feb. filings were untimely beyond 20-day rule | Genuine dispute of material fact exists; summary judgment improper for Officials on exhaustion ground |
| Whether failure to exhaust is jurisdictional | Smith implicitly: exhaustion is procedural not jurisdictional | Officials asserted lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion | Court: failure to exhaust is procedural/affirmative defense, not jurisdictional; trial court erred to treat it as jurisdictional |
| Whether Smith’s Jan. 4, 2015 request to return documents caused the mailing delay | Smith: he asked only for the petition’s return, not the motion for extension, so he did not cause delay | Officials: Smith’s request caused staff to return documents and therefore delayed mailing | Existence of material factual disputes about what Smith requested and why motion remained unmailed; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Smith was entitled to summary judgment on constitutional claims | Smith: designated evidence proves Officials mishandled mail and violated rights | Officials: factual disputes and exhaustion issues preclude summary judgment | Denial of Smith’s motion affirmed because genuine factual disputes remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamb v. Mid-Am. Serv. Co., 19 N.E.3d 792 (Ind. Ct. App.) (summary judgment standard)
- Rusnak v. Brent Wagner Architects, 55 N.E.3d 834 (Ind. Ct. App.) (moving party must negate opponent’s claim on summary judgment)
- Turner v. Boy Scouts of Am., 856 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. Ct. App.) (cross-motions for summary judgment reviewed separately)
- Alkhalidi v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 42 N.E.3d 562 (Ind. Ct. App.) (failure to exhaust is procedural, not jurisdictional)
- Jackson v. Wrigley, 921 N.E.2d 508 (Ind. Ct. App.) (exhaustion is affirmative defense and material fact disputes preclude summary judgment)
- Higgason v. Stogsdill, 818 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App.) (PLRA exhaustion requirement explained)