Terry Davis v. David Mason, 881 F.3d 982

Background

Terry Davis, an Indiana prisoner, sued two correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an unprovoked assault (punching, chokehold, plastic bag over head) on January 5, 2014.
Indiana’s three-step grievance process requires (1) informal resolution attempt, (2) formal grievance, and (3) administrative appeal; the written policy does not mention Internal Affairs or permit appeals from a refusal to process a grievance.
Davis submitted multiple formal grievances after the incident; the grievance coordinator returned them as unprocessable, checking boxes for a "classification" issue and once for incompleteness or untimeliness, and repeatedly instructing Davis to contact Internal Affairs without explaining how to cure defects.
The coordinator did not identify what was missing from the grievances, did not explain the alleged classification issue, and did not indicate she was exercising any broader authority to require informal-resolution steps involving Internal Affairs.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Davis failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on that basis.
The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the record did not clearly show Davis failed to exhaust because the coordinator’s unexplained refusals could have made the grievance process unavailable to him.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davis exhausted administrative remedies under PLRA	Davis contends the grievance process was made unavailable because the coordinator refused to process grievances and gave mixed/unexplained instructions	Defendants argue Davis failed to file proper grievances or fix deficiencies and thus did not exhaust; they also contend contacting Internal Affairs was a normal informal step	Vacated district judgment; summary judgment improper because record permits finding process was unavailable and Davis may have done all required
Whether coordinator’s instruction to contact Internal Affairs was required by policy	Davis argues policy does not require contacting Internal Affairs and coordinator lacked authority to impose that requirement	Defendants assert contacting Internal Affairs was part of informal resolution or a normal step	Court found no evidence in record that policy required Internal Affairs contact; defendants failed to show coordinator was authorized to impose that step
Whether unexplained refusals to process grievances can render remedies unavailable	Davis says unexplained/mixed signals (classification box, no cure instructions) misled him and prevented exhaustion	Defendants maintain remedies remained available and Davis could have sought appeal or further steps	Court held unexplained rejections can make remedies effectively unavailable; policy requires explanation of how to correct deficiencies
Burden of proof on exhaustion at summary judgment	Davis: not his burden to prove unavailability; he need only show reasonable attempt	Defendants: contended Davis failed to exhaust and relied on summary-judgment record	Court reaffirmed defendants bear burden to show lack of exhaustion; they did not meet it here

Key Cases Cited

Pyles v. Nwaobasi, 829 F.3d 860 (7th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to show failure to exhaust)
King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889 (7th Cir.) (same allocation of burden on exhaustion)
Hill v. Snyder, 817 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir.) (prison officials’ erroneous statements can make remedies unavailable)
Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899 (7th Cir.) (recognizing unavailability where officials mislead inmate about grievance steps)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S.) (administrative exhaustion is required only when remedies are available and not rendered unavailable by officials)
Swisher v. Porter Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 769 F.3d 553 (7th Cir.) (mixed signals from officials can confuse available grievance paths)
Small v. Camden County, 728 F.3d 265 (3d Cir.) (no exhaustion required where prison procedures provide no appeal from an official’s non-decision)