Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02179/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2179

___________________________

Richard Trevino

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Woodbury County Jail, et al.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________

 Submitted: November 19, 2015

Filed: December 1, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Richard Trevino brought this civil damage action claiming that

his pretrial confinement at the jail in Woodbury County, Iowa, violated Title II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and his constitutional rights. Trevino appeals

Appellate Case: 15-2179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Entry ID: 4341279 
the district court’s1

 dismissal of his claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies, as the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires, see 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a); and the grant of summary judgment dismissing on the merits his claim

that defendants kept him isolated from the jail’s general population because of his

disabilities.2

 We affirm.

On appeal, Trevino argues that he did not fail to exhaust the jail’s

administrative remedies because jail officials prevented him from using its grievance

procedures. The record belies this assertion. Trevino filed eleven written complaints

while at the jail and presented no evidence that any official thwarted his attempts to

file more grievances. See Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus,

we agree with the district court that administrative grievance remedies were available,

and Trevino failed properly to exhaust them. 

Two of Trevino’s grievances included the claim that he was placed in solitary

confinement on account of his disability. Jail officials may have rejected this

grievance on the merits even though it was technically flawed, which would satisfy

the PLRA exhaustion requirement. See Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th

Cir.2012). However, the district court properly granted summary judgment dismissing

this claim on the merits. The record contains unrebutted evidence that jail officials

kept the wheelchair-bound Trevino in an isolated cell for his safety because he would

have been an easy target for violent inmates in the general population, and the jail

could not afford additional staff to keep him safe. Trevino failed to respond with

evidence of intentional disability discrimination or deliberate indifference to his rights

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leonard

T. Strand, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

2

On appeal, Trevino does not challenge dismissal of the United States Marshals

Service on the ground of sovereign immunity. That ruling is therefore affirmed. See

Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740-41 (8th Cir.1985).

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Entry ID: 4341279 
under Title II of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (ADA requirements); Meagley v.

City of Little Rock, 639 F.3d 384, 389 (8th Cir. 2011). His constitutional § 1983

claim arising from the isolation fails for the same reason.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We deny Trevino’s motions for

sanctions on appeal.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-2179 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Entry ID: 4341279