Terrell v. Benfer
429 F. App'x 74
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Terrell, a federal prisoner, sued alleging prison guards at USP Lewisburg publicly called him a rapist and moved him into a reportedly occupied solitary confinement cell, where a fellow inmate attacked and restrained him for hours.
- Terrell claimed he filed two BP-8 informal resolution attempts about the conduct and received responses indicating the issue was being reviewed.
- The district court initially found a genuine issue about whether the formal BOP grievance process was available to Terrell because the BP-8s had not shown resolution.
- On reconsideration, the district court held the BP-8 responses did not prohibit formal filing, concluding the formal process was available but not exhausted.
- The district court then granted summary judgment for the defendants, and Terrell appealed; the issue centered on whether Terrell exhausted administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Terrell exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit | Terrell argues informal BP-8s should suffice or imply exhaustion. | Defendants contend the BP-8s led to a formal review, which was not exhausted. | No; Terrell failed to exhaust before filing. |
| Whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment on exhaustion grounds | Terrell contends material facts about exhaustion remain unresolved due to BP-8 responses. | Defendants maintain the record shows no genuine issue as to exhaustion. | Yes; summary judgment proper; no genuine issue about exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2001) (exhaustion required before federal suit; PLRA applies to all inmate suits)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (exhaustion required for prison conditions actions)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion includes substantial compliance within prison process)
- Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (SUFFICIENCY of exhaustion inquiry in Third Circuit)
- DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2004) (plenary review of summary-judgment determinations in exhaustion context)
- Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard for reconsideration and exhaustion-related rulings)
- Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reconsideration decisions)