Terrence SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert ZACHARY, James P. Nickerson, Lieutenant, Herman S. Nelson, Graciano Arroyo, James A. Phillips, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-4084
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Argued April 9, 2001. Decided June 28, 2001.
255 F.3d 446
Jerold S. Solovy, Sunil R. Harjani (argued), Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Matthew A. Jacober, Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, Michael J. Nester, Donovan, Rose, Nester & Szewczyk, Belleville, IL, for Defendants-Appellees James P. Nickerson and Herman S. Nelson.
Peter R. Maier (argued), Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., App. Sec., Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Graciano Arroyo and James A. Phillips.
TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.
The issue presented in this case is whether a federal prisoner must satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) when he claims he was beaten by prison guards. The prisoner, Terrence Smith, argues that his claim-the result of an alleged act of excessive force against him-is exempt from the PLRA‘s exhaustion requirement because it‘s outside the scope of the phrase “prison conditions” under the Act.
In 1996 Smith filed this suit pro se1 seeking $3.5 million in damages for allegedly being beaten, in 1995, by prison guards in retaliation for participating in a prison riot. The federal prison system has an administrative review process which requires prisoners to notify the prison staff of a complaint within 20 days. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the warden‘s response, he can appeal on a formal basis to the regional and then to the central office of the Bureau of Prisons. Smith filed an informal complaint 55 days late and failed to appeal the warden‘s response through the various tiers of administrative review.
The amended version of the
We do not interpret statutes in a vacuum. The plain meaning rule is applicable when the statutory language is clear, unambiguous, and not controlled by other parts of the act or other acts on the same subject. 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46:01 (rev. 6th ed.2000). Thus, “the meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context.” Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 7 (1999) (quoting King v. St. Vincent‘s Hosp., 502 U.S. 215, 221 (1991)). “It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989)). Thus, the meaning of a statute may be affected by a related act, especially if that act provides greater specificity on the issue at hand. Id.
Here, although
In
Even were we to disregard the guidance provided by Congress in
Second, Smith crafts his claim as an isolated event, a freak occurrence that will not be repeated. However, the nature of the event is open to interpretation. An assault by a prison guard could be a byproduct of systemic problems, including poor hiring procedures, insufficient training and supervision, or an inadequate procedure for responding to prison riots or insubordinate behavior by prisoners. Given that part of a prison guard‘s job is to control inmates, the use of excessive force in achieving this end can be viewed as a management failure, not only as a random act of violence. We read the term “prison conditions” in context-not only as it relates to other statutory provisions, but
Finally, we note the obvious: no canon of statutory interpretation requires us to abandon common sense. Here, Smith hangs his hat not on a single word, but on a single letter. Based on this, he asks us to create an exception allowing for speedy review of factually rich, excessive force claims affecting a single inmate, while requiring claims concerning prison policies affecting the entire prison population to proceed through administrative review. This is counterintuitive. Not only would claims affecting the least number of people be addressed first, but judges would be required to review these factually intense claims of assault and harassment without the benefit of the administrative review process, where, at a minimum, the basics of who-did-what-to-whom are at least given some initial consideration. Again, the plain meaning rule does not strap us to every word and letter if, in animating such words, we would reach an absurd result. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 707 (2000); United States v. Balint, 201 F.3d 928, 932 (7th Cir.2000) (“[O]ur interpretation is guided not just by a single sentence or sentence fragment, but by the language of the whole law....“).
Next, Smith argues that regardless of the statutory language, the legislative history and purpose of the PLRA supports his position. He contends that the only purpose of
While we will concede that restricting frivolous claims was one of the objectives served by
Requiring prompt notice and exhaustion also gives prison officials an opportunity to address a situation internally, which in a
Next, we note that deterring frivolous suits could not have been the only issue Congress had in mind. In 1996 Congress did create a subsection of
Nonetheless, citing sound-bites from the pre-passage floor debates, Smith argues that Congress intended to create a subject matter exception to the exhaustion requirement for excessive force claims because these are particularized attacks. First, the PLRA already contains a subject matter exception, suggesting that Congress had already considered which class of cases should be exempt from this legislation. Walker v. O‘Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633-37 (7th Cir.2000) (PLRA does not apply to petition for writ of habeas corpus properly filed under either
Second, Smith mischaracterizes the effect of the exhaustion requirement. Requiring administrative review does not foreclose a prisoner‘s ability to file suit, it merely creates a necessary precondition. The requirement is not designed to stop prisoners from filing suits, but rather to facilitate the litigation process. In particular, the development of the factual record may help rather than hinder prisoners, enabling them to succinctly present their cases.
More importantly, the standard Smith urges us to accept-an exception for particularized instances of force directed at a specific inmate-is a cumbersome test to apply. Following this standard would validate the old cliché of the exception swallowing the rule. Any claim could be fashioned to fit this requirement, not merely claims of excessive force. In fact, applying this standard, the Second Circuit has recently extended the scope of the exception it recognized in Nussle by holding that particularized instances of retaliatory conduct, like particularized instances of force, are not subject to the PLRA‘s administrative
In addition, even were we to accept Smith‘s argument that the only purpose Congress had in passing
Finally, the recent decision in Booth adds further to the view that the PLRA‘s exhaustion requirement is indeed very broad. There the Supreme Court held that administrative exhaustion was required despite the fact that the only remedy sought, money damages, was not available as an award in Pennsylvania‘s prison grievance system. It is also interesting to note that the Supreme Court, although not discussing the point, required exhaustion in Booth even though the prisoner‘s claim grew, like here, out of an alleged assault of a prisoner by corrections officers.
We now turn to Smith‘s two final arguments, futility and substantial compliance. Citing dicta in Perez v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir.1999) (“It is possible to imagine cases in which the harm is done and no further administrative action could supply any remedy.“), Smith argues that he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because his injury was complete and the remedy he sought was monetary damages, which the administrative review process does not provide. Booth, as we just noted, ends this argument. Moreover, we do not accept Smith‘s characterization of his claim as complete. When the incident occurred, Smith was still serving his term and was still subject to the supervision of his alleged abusers. Had he filed an administrative claim there were several remedies available to him, including transferring him to another facility or disciplining or retraining the guards.
Finally, Smith argues that the incident occurred in 1995 before the passage of the PLRA amendments, and thus by filing several complaints he substantially complied with the exhaustion requirement. The substantial compliance doctrine arises only when a prisoner‘s claim arose before April 26, 1996, the effective date of the PLRA amendment. In such cases, a prisoner may show that he substantially complied with the exhaustion requirement by making a good faith attempt to reach the appropriate prison official. See Wolff v. Moore, 199 F.3d 324, 327 (6th Cir.1999). In response to the government‘s motion to dismiss based on Smith‘s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Smith argued only that he was not required to exhaust. Thus, by failing to raise the issue of substantial compliance before the district court, he waived this argument. Schoenfeld v. Apfel, 237 F.3d 788, 793 (7th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
I do not believe that the plain meaning of “prison conditions” under
When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we apply the plain meaning (period). Connecticut Nat‘l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992); United States v. Hayward, 6 F.3d 1241, 1245 (7th Cir.1993). In ascertaining the plain meaning of the language, however, we should not read with blinders on-context matters. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340-41 (1997). But that latter principle has limits; invoking “context,” we may not redraft language Congress enacted simply because the language may fail to achieve Congress‘s entire purpose as we perceive it. See Dunn v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm‘n, 519 U.S. 465, 470 (1997) (“[A]bsent any indication that doing so would frustrate Congress‘s clear intention or yield patent absurdity, our obligation is to apply the statute as Congress wrote it.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 247 n. 4 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Stretching language in order to write a more effective statute than Congress devised is not an exercise we should indulge in.“); Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm‘t Group, 493 U.S. 120, 126 (1989) (“Our task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.“); United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 95 (1985) (“[T]he fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do.“). In this case, the majority appears to be fixing the language of
To the language of the statute, then. The statute itself does not define “prison conditions.” If only as a preliminary, working definition, Webster‘s Dictionary defines “conditions” as “attendant circumstances: existing state of affairs.” Web-
In common parlance, conditions-circumstances or states, under our definition-largely refer to the physical environment or surroundings in which something is situated. When applied to conduct specifically, the term implies, and seemingly requires, that the conduct occur with regularity, meaning that it is common and usual-which, when applied to conduct of officials part of an institution, suggests a policy or routine practice in the institution. As an example, in a high crime area a robbery (though not always frequent) is a “condition,” because it is common and usual in such an area. Or, taking the first of the two earlier examples, if rotted trees are widespread on a golf course and frequently fall (even if on the same hapless golfer), then falling trees could be said to be a “condition,” because common and usual to that course.3 But it is strange, if not strained, to refer to a random, violent assault by prison officials as conditions, or as a condition.4
But I do not understand my colleagues to quibble with the plain meaning of the statute we are asked to interpret. Instead, the majority borrows the definition of prison conditions contained in
Apparently the majority concedes that excessive force is not included within the first clause of the definition. Ante, at 449; see also, e.g., Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289, 294 (3d Cir.2000) aff‘d. on other grounds, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). Indeed, excessive force fits no better in that definition (conditions of confinement) than the language of
Claims of excessive force are not claims relating to effects; they are claims relating to actions. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7-11 (1992). Hudson recognizes this difference, excluding excessive force claims from the “extreme deprivation” requirement applicable to conditions of confinement claims under the Eighth Amendment. Id. For claims of excessive force, the action itself violates the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 9 (“When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. This is true whether or not significant injury is evident.” (citations omitted)). But for conditions-of-confinement-type claims, the extreme deprivation-i.e., the effects-creates an Eighth Amendment violation, not the actions themselves. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345-47 (1981). Therefore, the second clause definition, addressing claims relating to the “effects of actions,” cannot necessarily be said to include excessive force.
So it cannot be the language of the statute that is driving the majority to conclude that claims of excessive force are included within “prison conditions” under
It may be that Congress really did want to include this kind of claim in