Tony Mutschler v. Brenba Tritt
20-2022
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 22, 2021Background
- In December 2014 Mutschler (pro se, then a Pennsylvania prisoner) filed a §1983 suit against prison doctor Adrian Harewood and six DOC officials alleging inadequate adult-diaper supplies, urine-soaked bedding, accumulation of used diapers in his cell, and discontinuation of pain medication.
- Mutschler voluntarily dismissed one defendant; the District Court granted summary judgment to Dr. Harewood in 2019 (unchallenged on appeal) and granted summary judgment to the remaining DOC Defendants on May 5, 2020 on the ground that Mutschler failed to exhaust specified grievances.
- The District Court relied on six grievances identified by defendants; the Third Circuit agreed those six were not exhausted but identified a seventh grievance (Grievance No. 519814, dated July 23, 2014) not addressed below.
- Grievance 7 alleged eight days of urine-soaked bedding and 18 discarded urine-soaked diapers in the cell, naming Facility Manager Brenda Tritt and Lt. Roy Manbeck; it was received July 25, 2014 and the Grievance Officer’s denial was issued six days after the policy response deadline, with no extension request or inmate notice in the record.
- Under Third Circuit precedent, a prison’s failure to timely respond to a properly submitted grievance can render administrative remedies unavailable, satisfying PLRA exhaustion; on this record the court found Grievance 7 was not shown to be unexhausted.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court as to the claims linked to the six grievances, reversed as to the claims in Grievance 7 against Tritt and Manbeck, and remanded for further proceedings; Mutschler’s motions for counsel and a stay were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mutschler exhausted administrative remedies for the six grievances the District Court relied on | Mutschler argued he filed many grievances and exhausted them to the fullest | DOC argued the six identified grievances were not properly exhausted per DC‑ADM 804 | Court: Affirmed — those six grievances were not exhausted |
| Whether Grievance No. 519814 (Grievance 7) was exhausted | Mutschler argued he timely submitted Grievance 7 and the prison’s failure to timely respond rendered remedies unavailable | DOC did not rely on Grievance 7 below and record lacks evidence of a timely denial or valid extension notice | Court: Reversed as to Grievance 7 — record shows no timely response or extension; exhaustion satisfied and claims may proceed |
| Whether allegations in Grievance 7 state an Eighth Amendment claim (merits) | Mutschler alleged prolonged exposure to urine-soaked bedding and accumulating used diapers, amounting to cruel and unusual conditions | DOC did not move on the merits for Grievance 7 in the summary-judgment motion | Court: Remanded — allegations suffice to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim and require further development on the merits |
| Motions for appointment of counsel and stay | Mutschler sought appointed counsel and a stay (COVID‑19 / isolation reasons) | DOC opposed | Court: Denied appointment of counsel and denied stay request |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 831 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (PLRA requires exhaustion of prison grievance procedures)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with the prison’s procedural rules)
- Small v. Camden County, 728 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013) (administrative exhaustion means substantial compliance with grievance procedures)
- Shifflett v. Korszniak, 934 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2019) (prison’s failure to timely respond can render remedies unavailable)
- Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2020) (failure-to-exhaust is an affirmative defense defendants must plead and prove)
- Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1992) (unsanitary prison conditions can violate the Eighth Amendment)
- Lomando v. United States, 667 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)