Sixth Circuit Sets Up Circuit Split with Ruling on Michigan Prisoner’s PLRA Exhaustion Dispute
Before a prisoner can sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must exhaust any administrative remedies available to him; that is the threshold requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Not infrequently, a court is asked to resolve factual dispute over satisfaction of that requirement; but what happens when the relevant facts are the same as those underlying the merits of the prisoner’s claim? In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said on March 19, 2024, the Seventh Amendment requires a jury to resolve any factual disputes.
Kyle Brandon Richards was held at Michigan’s Baraga Correctional Facility when he sued Residential Unit Manager Thomas Perttu for alleged sexual harassment, retaliation and destruction of property. Richards claimed that Perttu made sexual advances and repeatedly tried to coerce him to have sex. Other prisoners allegedly witnessed the harassment.
But when Richards tried to file grievances about the abuse, Perttu allegedly intercepted and destroyed them, telling the prisoner: “I am not letting you file these grievances.” He then “proceeded to rip them up” in front of Richards, according to the complaint he later filed, adding that Richards could “go ahead and keep filing grievances. We are reading them. I choose which ones I’ll let you file.” Other prisoners allegedly saw Perttu destroy Richards’ grievances.
Perttu moved for summary judgment dismissal of Richards’ claims, arguing that the absence of any grievances filed over the alleged events meant the prisoner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by PLRA. The federal court for the Western District of Michigan held an evidentiary hearing on the exhaustion issue but refused to believe Richards’ allegations that Perttu destroyed his grievances or otherwise prevented him from accessing the grievance process. The district court also found Richards’ prisoner-witnesses were not credible. It therefore dismissed the suit without prejudice. Richards appealed, arguing that a jury, not the district court, should resolve the factual disputes concerning exhaustion because those facts also formed the basis of his First Amendment retaliation claim.
The Sixth Circuit noted that prisoners have a constitutional right to file non-frivolous grievances, and that prison officials may not retaliate against them for doing so, per Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2000). So Richards’ complaint stated a viable retaliation claim by alleging that Perttu destroyed his grievances to prevent him from complaining about sexual abuse. The Court said the Seventh Amendment provides prisoners the right to a jury trial on the merits of a § 1983 claim, such as Richards’ First Amendment retaliation claim against Perttu, citing City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999). But factual disputes related to procedural issues, such as whether a prisoner has properly exhausted administrative remedies, are typically resolved prior to trial by the court, not a jury, as noted in Lee v. Willey, 789 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2015).
What happens, though, when those factual issues underlying the procedural question are the same as those supporting the prisoner’s constitutional claim? In that case, the Sixth Circuit concluded, “the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial”—because “resolution of the exhaustion issue under the PLRA would also resolve a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive case.” Whether Perttu interfered with Richards’ ability to file grievances, thereby excusing his failure to exhaust administrative remedies, was a question intertwined with Richards’ retaliation claim against Perttu for destroying his grievances in the first place. So the district court must hold a jury trial on these related factual disputes.
Accordingly, the Court reversed summary judgment dismissal of Richards’ lawsuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. Richards was represented on appeal by attorneys Sean Gray, J. Scott Ballenger and Lauren McNerney from the University of Virginia School of Law. See: Richards v. Perttu, 96 F.4th 911 (6th Cir. 2024).
The decision sets up a circuit split; as PLN reported, the Seventh Circuit arrived at the opposite conclusion in Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), holding that judges, not juries, should resolve factual disputes concerning administrative exhaustion, even when those facts are intertwined with the merits of the underlying claim. [See: PLN, July 15, 2011, online.] Defendants in Richards’ case have now filed for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the U.S. to resolve this split, and PLN will update developments as are available.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login