Shawn Wayne Whatley v. Ware SP Warden, 898 F.3d 1072

Background

In Jan 2011 Shawn Whatley, then an inmate, alleges he was brutally beaten at Telfair State Prison and transferred to Ware State Prison without adequate medical care; he later pursued multiple prison grievances.
Georgia DOC SOP required a three-step grievance process (informal, formal, commissioner appeal); rules limited grievances to one issue and (at the time) required completing the informal step before a formal grievance.
Key filings: an alleged January 18 informal grievance (no prison record); Informal Grievance #80327 (filed Feb 10, 2011) — rejected by counselor as non‑grievable (transfer complaint); Informal/Formal Grievance #80940 (Mar 2011) — counselor denied on merits; Warden denied formal grievance on the merits; Commissioner’s Office denied appeal but addressed only the processing/80327 issue on the merits and did not explicitly cite procedural defects for the assault claim.
District court dismissed Whatley’s §1983 suit for failure to exhaust under the PLRA; Eleventh Circuit in Whatley I remanded for factual determinations and announced that a procedurally flawed grievance is exhausted if prison officials decide it on the merits (waiver rule).
On remand the district court found the January 18 grievance was never filed and held that the Commissioner’s silence at the final level preserved procedural defects as to the assault claim, so Whatley had not exhausted. The Eleventh Circuit reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the alleged Jan. 18 informal grievance was filed and thus exhausted remedies	Whatley: he filed the Jan. 18 informal grievance and did not get a response, making administrative remedies unavailable	Defendants: prison records lack the grievance; affidavits dispute authenticity of Whatley’s exhibits	Court: district court did not clearly err — evidence supports finding the Jan. 18 grievance was never filed; no exhaustion from that document
Whether Grievance 80940 exhausted the assault claims despite procedural defects	Whatley: pursued 80940 through all levels and received merits-based responses at each step — prison waived procedural defenses	Defendants: 80940 was procedurally flawed (raised multiple issues; included issues not raised at informal step); Commissioner’s failure to address assault means procedural bar preserved	Court: Commissioner’s Office denied on the merits one claim and did not explicitly rely on procedural defects for the assault claim; because the administration did not invoke procedural grounds at the final level, the prison waived those defects and Whatley exhausted
Standard for when a prison waives procedural objections to a grievance	Whatley: waiver occurs when prison officials decide a procedurally flawed grievance on the merits during administrative review	Defendants: waiver requires merits resolution at each level or cannot be presumed from silence at final level	Court: adopts rule requiring an explicit invocation of procedural defects at the final available level; waiver occurs if the final decision denies on merits without invoking procedural grounds
Whether improperly rejecting Informal Grievance 80327 made remedies unavailable	Whatley (on appeal now): counselor mischaracterized 80327 as transfer complaint, making remedies unavailable	Defendants: the issue was non‑grievable (transfer) under SOP; paperwork supports rejection	Court: this argument was not preserved from the first appeal and is not before the panel on second appeal

Key Cases Cited

Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2015) (announcing that a procedurally flawed grievance is exhausted if prison officials decide it on the merits)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA places burden on defendants to plead and prove failure to exhaust)
Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) (two‑step framework for PLRA exhaustion factual disputes)
Reed‑Bey v. Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010) (waiver where merits‑based responses occurred at administrative steps)
Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016) (prisoner exhausts when officials ignore procedural defects and decide on the merits at each available step)
Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding waiver when grievance was denied on the merits at administrative steps)
Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (procedural shortcomings amount to failure to exhaust only if administrators explicitly relied on them)
Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000) (judicial review open where ultimate administrative authority decided merits)
Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion achieved where relief granted at first level)
Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court may resolve exhaustion factual disputes on submitted papers)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear‑error standard for appellate review of factual findings)