Shawn Wayne Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16836

Background

Whatley alleges he was beaten at Telfair State Prison on Jan 12, 2011, transferred without adequate medical care, and filed multiple grievances while being moved among facilities.
He filed an informal grievance on Jan 18 (no response) and later appealed to the Commissioner; defendants contend the exhibit receipts were forged.
He filed an "imminent danger" informal grievance (No. 80327) on Feb 10, 2011, which was rejected as raising a non-grievable transfer issue.
On Mar 7, 2011 he filed informal grievance No. 80940 (referring to the imminent danger grievance), then filed a formal grievance (Mar 22) and an appeal; the warden addressed the beating/medical claims on the merits, and the Commissioner rejected the appeal.
Defendants moved to dismiss under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for failure to exhaust; the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and dismissed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court applied the proper Turner two-step process for exhaustion disputes	Whatley: District Court should accept his factual allegations (e.g., he filed Jan 18 grievance, received no response) and determine exhaustion on that view; factual disputes require specific findings	Defendants: Exhibits are fraudulent; court should find grievance never filed and affirm dismissal without remand	Court reversed: District Court failed to (1) accept Whatley’s facts at step one and (2) make specific factual findings at step two; remand required
Whether an informal grievance followed by an appeal (without a formal step) can exhaust when the SOP provided no procedure for lack of response to informal grievances	Whatley: He could not file a formal grievance because the prison never responded to the informal grievance; SOP is silent on that situation	Defendants: He did not follow SOP (skipped formal step) and admitted appeal was untimely	Court: On plaintiff’s version, prison’s failure to respond prevented completion of the informal step; SOP silence meant District Court should not have faulted him at step one
Whether grievance 80940 exhausted administrative remedies despite a procedural defect in its informal stage	Whatley: He pursued the process to the final stage and the warden considered and rejected his beating/medical claims on the merits	Defendants: 80940 was procedurally flawed (did not raise beating/medical issues in the informal grievance) and thus cannot exhaust	Court: Reversed—trial court may not enforce a procedural bar that the prison itself declined to enforce; if the prison addressed the grievance on the merits, exhaustion may be satisfied; remand to make factual findings
Whether courts may treat a procedurally flawed grievance as unexhausted when the prison authority decided on the merits	Whatley: If prison considered and denied the grievance on the merits, the state waived the procedural defense	Defendants: Procedural rules govern exhaustion and must be enforced even if earlier decision reached merits	Court: Adopted rule following sister circuits: if prison officials decide a procedurally flawed grievance on the merits, courts may not later find a lack of exhaustion based on that overlooked procedural rule; remand to determine whether merit review occurred at final step

Key Cases Cited

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2001) (PLRA requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (purpose of exhaustion is to allow prison officials to address complaints internally)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (prisoners must comply with grievance procedures to exhaust)
Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) (two-step process for resolving exhaustion disputes)
Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010) (state waiver rule: acceptance on merits cures procedural default)
Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2012) (untimely grievance accepted and decided on merits satisfies exhaustion)
Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (same waiver principle)
Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (failures to meet deadlines can be excused when institution considers claim on merits)
Ross v. Cty. of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004) (acceptance of belated filing and merits review avoids exhaustion default)
Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000) (similar rule applying waiver when grievance decided on merits)