Shannon Troche v. Michael Crabtree, 814 F.3d 795

Inmate Shannon Troche alleged that on August 20, 2011, Correctional Officer Michael Crabtree assaulted him at SOCF, causing injuries and subsequent punitive isolation and food deprivation.
Troche claims he initiated Ohio’s three-step grievance process the same day by filing an Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR) to the shift supervisor and later sought a notification of grievance from the Inspector of Institutional Services (IIS); he alleges he received no responses at steps one or two and later inquired by letter and internal mail.
Crabtree moved for summary judgment under the PLRA, asserting Troche failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit; IIS declarations countered that Troche did not properly file the required forms.
The Magistrate Judge and district court granted summary judgment, reasoning that Troche should have filed a step-three appeal despite alleged non-responses and thus failed to exhaust available remedies.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo, treating non-exhaustion as an affirmative defense that Crabtree bore the burden to prove, and considered whether Troche’s sworn declaration created a genuine factual dispute about exhaustion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Troche exhausted administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) given alleged non-responses at steps one and two	Troche says he followed steps one and two, received no responses, inquired about status, and reasonably could not proceed further	Crabtree contends Troche failed to complete step three (appeal to chief inspector) and thus did not exhaust remedies	Court held a genuine dispute exists as to steps one and two; but more importantly, under Ohio rules Troche was not required to file step three when he never received a step-two response, so summary judgment for failure to exhaust was improper
Whether a prisoner must treat a non-response at step two as a denial and proceed to step three	Troche argues Ohio regs authorize proceeding to step two after a non-response at step one but do not instruct treating step-two non-responses as denials or permitting step-three without a disposition	Crabtree (and the district court) relied on other case law to argue a prisoner must pursue the next level despite non-responses to preserve claims	Court refused to import a duty to appeal where Ohio’s grievance procedure does not provide that a step-two non-response constitutes a denial; distinguished Risher and reversed summary judgment

Siggers v. Campbell, 652 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment principles)
EEOC v. Prevo's Family Market, Inc., 135 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 1998) (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (when summary judgment is appropriate)
Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 1994) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Risher v. Lappin, 639 F.3d 236 (6th Cir. 2011) (PLRA exhaustion where BOP regs treated non-response as denial; distinguished)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion mandatory but not required to be pleaded)
Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010) (must follow prison procedural rules to exhaust)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)