997 F.3d 88
2d Cir.2021Background:
- In June 2017, while in pretrial detention at Monroe County Jail, Rucker experienced severe abdominal symptoms, was repeatedly denied prompt medical care, and was ultimately hospitalized on June 23 for diabetic ketoacidosis and related conditions.
- He underwent major surgery (large bowel resection and later pancreatic removal), was placed in a coma, and remained hospitalized for about one month.
- Rucker filed an internal grievance on July 23, 2018. The jail’s Inmate Handbook required grievances be filed within five days of the incident; the jail refused to process his grievance as untimely.
- Rucker sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed his claims against medical defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding that administrative remedies were unavailable because Rucker’s medical condition prevented timely filing and the jail’s grievance system did not accommodate that condition.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" under the PLRA when plaintiff was hospitalized and missed the five-day filing window | Rucker: severe medical condition and month-long hospitalization prevented filing within five days, so remedies were unavailable | Defendants: grievance process was available on its face; no "special circumstances" excuse to PLRA exhaustion | Court: Remedies were unavailable because (1) failure to timely file resulted from medical condition, and (2) the grievance system refused to accommodate that condition |
| Whether Ross v. Blake permits a medical-incapacity exception to exhaustion | Rucker: medical incapacity fits within Ross’s unavailability principle | Defendants: Ross forecloses a general "special circumstances" escape; plaintiff still must exhaust | Court: Ross’s unavailability concept is not limited to its three examples; medical incapacity that prevents filing and is uncompensated by the process renders remedies unavailable |
| Whether alternative arguments (e.g., not receiving handbook) needed resolution | Rucker: also argued he never got the handbook and so did not know the rule | Defendants: raised exhaustion defense; district court relied on exhaustion | Court: Did not decide handbook argument because medical-unavailability ruling was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (PLRA requires exhaustion only of remedies that are "available"; identifies examples of unavailability)
- Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2003) (physical injury that prevents timely filing plus rejection as untimely can render remedies unavailable)
- Williams v. Priatno, 829 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2016) (procedural opacity of grievance process can make remedies effectively unavailable)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion must comply with an agency’s procedural requirements)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, not a pleading requirement)