Wenona White v. Timothy Bukowski
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15439
7th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff was detained at Kankakee County Jail for ~11 days while ~8 months pregnant; she reported some symptoms and sought care; an assistant wanted to check but she sometimes refused.
- She went into labor on day 11, was transported by ambulance to a hospital, and delivered a daughter with serious birth defects the same day. She returned to the jail for four days then was transferred.
- She later pleaded guilty to the federal conspiracy charge and filed this § 1983 suit two years after the events, alleging deliberate indifference to prenatal needs and delay in transport contributed to the child’s injuries.
- The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants first raised exhaustion in their answer but pressed it after extensive discovery.
- The Seventh Circuit considered whether administrative remedies were “available” to her given (a) the apparent futility or impossibility of obtaining meaningful relief after the harm; and (b) practical barriers to filing a grievance before her transfer (no deadline in handbook; transfers by U.S. Marshals without notice; jail would not accept grievances from non‑detainees).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies before filing § 1983 suit | Plaintiff contends no remedies were available: harm was complete before she could grieve and transfer made filing impossible | Defendants contend she failed to file grievances and thus suit must be dismissed for non‑exhaustion | Reversed: administrative remedies were not available, so exhaustion requirement not met and dismissal improper |
| Whether a grievance could have provided any meaningful relief for harms already completed (birth defects) | Grieving would be futile because prenatal care and transport delays could not be remedied after birth; no relief possible for the child’s injuries | Defendants argue some grievance systems can lead to non‑monetary relief or administrative changes even if damages unavailable | Court held that where administrative process cannot provide any effective relief, exhaustion is not required |
| Whether transfer that prevented filing renders remedies unavailable | Plaintiff argues transfer (without notice) and jail policy refusing grievances by former detainees made remedies unavailable | Defendants argue grievance procedures existed and plaintiff could have filed before transfer | Court held transfer timing and lack of notice made deadlines not reasonably possible to meet; remedies unavailable |
| Whether defendant forfeited exhaustion defense by delaying assertion until after discovery | Plaintiff argues delay forfeits the defense | Defendants had raised exhaustion in their answer; court found no showing of prejudice from delay so addressed availability issue | Court addressed availability and refused to find waiver; outcome based on unavailability rather than waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (district courts should resolve exhaustion before merits discovery)
- Perez v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 1999) (no exhaustion required where administrative process cannot provide relief because injury healed)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion required unless the administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (grievance requirement applies even when plaintiff seeks only damages, but not if no relief is available)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (procedural default rules for exhaustion)
- King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2015) (short filing deadlines that cannot be met due to transfer render remedies unavailable)
- Hurst v. Hantke, 634 F.3d 409 (7th Cir. 2011) (administrative remedy forfeited by impossible deadlines is not "available")
- Rodriguez v. Westchester County Jail Corr. Dep’t, 372 F.3d 485 (2d Cir. 2004) (transfer can render administrative remedies unavailable)
- Ruggiero v. County of Orange, 467 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2006) (exhaustion required even when grievance might not help the individual but could improve administration)
- Napier v. Laurel County, 636 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2011) (discusses requirement to file grievances despite lack of personal relief in some circuits)
- Medina‑Claudio v. Rodriguez‑Mateo, 292 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2002) (exhaustion principles for prisoner grievances)