Turner v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 683 F. App'x 180

Plaintiff William Turner, a Pennsylvania inmate, sued alleging (1) improper double-celling at SCI‑Mahanoy, (2) inadequate medical care for his diabetes (medication changed without warning of side effects), and (3) a retaliatory transfer to SCI‑Frackville for filing grievances.
Turner filed the suit on October 20, 2014; he had been housed at SCI‑Mahanoy from 1997 until a September 2014 transfer.
Defendants (DOC administrators and SCI‑Mahanoy officials) moved to stay discovery and later for summary judgment; the District Court stayed discovery and granted summary judgment.
The District Court held the diabetes-medication claim time‑barred (final grievance decision in Jan. 2010; two‑year statute of limitations) and dismissed other claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
Turner sought to amend his complaint; the District Court did not explicitly rule on the motion, but the court of appeals concluded amendment would have been futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether diabetes‑medication claim is timely	Turner contended med change claim is actionable	Defendants argued final grievance decision was in Jan. 2010, so suit filed in 2014 is time‑barred	Claim time‑barred under two‑year statute of limitations; summary judgment for defendants
Whether unrelated pre‑suit grievances exhaust federal claims	Turner pointed to several earlier grievances (job removal, lotion co‑pay, x‑ray) as evidence of exhaustion	Defendants said those grievances were unrelated to the claims in the complaint	Grievances unrelated; cannot satisfy PLRA exhaustion requirement
Whether August 2014 grievance exhausted remedies (double‑celling & diabetes care)	Turner relied on August 2014 grievance complaining of double‑celling and diabetes care	Defendants noted the institutional appeal was dismissed for failure to provide required documentation	Dismissal for procedural noncompliance = failure to exhaust; claims barred
Whether October 30, 2014 grievance (transfer/retaliation) was exhausted / effect of alleged Sept. 24 grievance	Turner alleged transfer was retaliatory and alluded to an earlier Sept. 24 grievance that received no response	Defendants noted final institutional appeal of Oct. 30 grievance occurred after suit filing; no proof of Sept. 24 grievance	Oct. 30 grievance did not show pre‑suit exhaustion; alleged Sept. 24 grievance issue waived for appeal and, on record, insufficient to avoid summary judgment

Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard review on appeal)
Smith v. City of Pittsburgh, 764 F.2d 188 (3d Cir. 1985) (statute of limitations principles)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion must comply with procedural rules)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion under PLRA is mandatory)
Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2000) (exhaustion principles and timing)
Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2002) (procedural default in grievance process bars suit)
Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (PLRA procedural default framework)
Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion timing and effect)
Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 831 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (excusing exhaustion where grievance process was thwarted)
Small v. Camden Cty., 728 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013) (circumstances excusing exhaustion)
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 824 F.3d 33 (3d Cir. 2016) (waiver of appellate issues by failure to raise)
Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 1999) (cannot avoid summary judgment with speculation)
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (futility of certain proposed amendments)