Thompson v. Booth
122 F.4th 61
2d Cir.2024Background
- Plaintiff Kevin Thompson (also known as James E. Moore, Jr.), an inmate at Fishkill Correctional Facility, sued five corrections officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged use of excessive force in 2014.
- All five defendants, including Troy Booth, answered and asserted the affirmative defense that Thompson failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
- In 2020, the New York Attorney General withdrew as Booth's counsel due to lack of communication, and Booth subsequently failed to participate in further litigation.
- The district court struck Booth's answer as a sanction for non-participation, later granting default judgment against him and awarding $50,000 in damages, while dismissing claims against the other officers on PLRA exhaustion grounds.
- Booth appealed, arguing the judgment was inconsistent because the same affirmative defense applied to him as to the other officers who obtained dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of default judgment against Booth was proper | Default judgment was proper because Booth waived defenses by defaulting | Default unjust where others dismissed on same grounds | No; default judgment cannot be entered where claims were dismissed on same defense |
| Applicability of Frow v. De La Vega principle | Principle does not apply—no joint liability imposed | Principle applies—defenses are identical | Frow applies to similarly situated defendants with closely related defenses |
| Whether district court abused discretion by striking Booth’s answer | Not addressed, as the judgment can be affirmed on other grounds | Striking was improper; Booth believed he had counsel | Not reached; decision rests on default judgment inconsistency |
| Whether affirmative defense of non-exhaustion bars claim vs. defaulting defendant | Waivable by failure to answer or defaulting | Non-exhaustion is a legal bar for all defendants | PLRA affirmative defense applies to defaulting and litigating defendants equally |
Key Cases Cited
- Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872) (prohibits inconsistent default judgments where claims are dismissed on the merits as to other similarly situated defendants)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion is an affirmative defense, not a pleading requirement)
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is mandatory)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion applies broadly to inmate suits about prison conditions)
- City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2011) (court must determine legal validity of claim before entering default judgment)