Shaw, Vonell v. Bohnsack, Jonathan
3:23-cv-00005-jdp
W.D. Wis.Feb 20, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Vonell Lavell Shaw alleged excessive force by correctional staff on May 4, 2022.
- Shaw filed an inmate complaint on May 23, 2022—more than 14 days after the incident.
- The institution complaint examiner rejected Shaw's complaint as untimely and noted Shaw did not provide a "plea for good cause."
- Shaw appealed, raising for the first time that clinical observation status and behavioral management restricted his ability to file promptly.
- Reviewing authorities upheld the rejection due to failure to comply with procedural requirements for timely or excused late filing.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shaw exhausted PLRA remedies | Shaw was prevented from timely filing due to prison conditions | Shaw failed to timely file or plead good cause in complaint | Shaw failed to exhaust; case dismissed without prejudice |
| Excuse for late filing | Restriction of property and misdirection by staff prevented filing | Shaw knew reasons for delay but didn't raise in complaint | No excuse; procedural requirements not satisfied |
| Effect of internal investigation | Investigation should excuse exhaustion requirement | Internal investigation alone does not make remedy unavailable | Investigation does not excuse exhaustion obligation |
| Burden of proving remedies available | Prison officials made remedies unavailable | Remedies were available and Shaw accessed them late | Burden met; evidence shows Shaw could have exhausted |
Key Cases Cited
- Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (procedural shortcomings can lead to failure to exhaust if explicitly relied on by administrators)
- Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013) (defendants bear burden of proof for exhaustion)
- Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion requires compliance with place and time rules)
- Lanaghan v. Koch, 902 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2018) (same, citing procedural requirement for prison grievances)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA's exhaustion requirement is mandatory)
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (prisoners must exhaust only available remedies)
- Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2004) (failure to exhaust PLRA remedies requires dismissal without prejudice)