## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 12

- 2568 J AM ES R. S CHULTZ, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. J EFFRE Y A. P UGH, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:1 0-cv-00 58 1-bbc

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED J UNE 26, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 23, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The pl ai nti ff, an inm at e a t a W i s c o ns i n s t a t e p r i s o n, fi l e d thi s s ui tu nd e r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 983 cl ai m i ng tha t pr i son offi ci al s had r etaliated ag ains t hi m f o r s peaki ngup ab o uta n a ss au l t th athe al l ege d had been m ade upon hi m by tw o pri son gu ar d s. The re tal i ati on t oo k the f or m o fp lac in g him i n seg re gati on a nd f orbi dd i ng hi m to di scuss the all ege d assa ul t. The de f en dan ts move d t o d ismi ss the s ui t o n the2 N o. 12

- 2568 gr ound that he had fa i l ed to exhaust hi s a dm i ni str ati ve re m edi es, by notfi l i ng a gr i evance thatco nfo rm ed to the pr i son’ s ru l es. H i s r esponse ( not hi s o nl y r esponse , but the o nl y o ne with suffi ci en t p lau sibi l i ty to be worth disc ussi ng) was that he i nter prete d the pro hibi ti on aga i nst s peaking abo ut the al l ege d assa ultto exte nd to the fi l i ng ofa gr i evance , and as a r esul t was afra i d to fi l e i t. The du ty to exhaust a d m i ni str ati ve re m edi es as a pre condi ti on t o sui ng under s ecti on 1 983 i s li m i ted to tho se re m edi es that ar e “avai l abl e, ” 42 U

. S. C. § 1997e ( a) , and as we p o i n t e d o u ti n F letch er v. M ena rd C o rrectio na l C enter, 623 F. 3d 1171 , 11 73 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , a rem edy m ust, to b e “ a v a i l a b l e,” be av aila b le in fac t a n d n ot m er ely in f o r m. S ee H urst v. Hantke, 634 F.3d 409 , 411-12 (7th C ir. 20 11 ); D illo n v . Ro gers , 596 F.3d 260 , 2 67 (5th C ir. 2010); B ryant v. Rich , 530 F.3d 13 68 , 1 3 7 3 n . 6 (11 th C ir. 20 08 ). A re m edy i s no t a vai l abl e, ther ef or e, to a p risonerpre vente d by threa ts oro theri nti m id at i on bypri son perso nnel fr om se eking an adm i ni str ati ve re m edy by filin g a grie va n c e in th e p re sc rib ed form an d w ith in th e p re sc rib ed d ea d lin e. Kaba v. St epp , 45 8 F

. 3d 678, 68 5- 86 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); Tucke l v. G rov er, 66 0 F

. 3d 1249 , 12 52- 53 (10 th C ir. 20 11 ); Tur ne rv. Bur ns i de, 54 1 F. 3d 1077, 10 84- 85 (11 th C ir. 20 08 ); M ac i as v. Ze nk, 49 5 F.3 d 37, 45 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 7)

. Butb ec au se the pe r tine ntr egul at i o n o fthe W i sc o ns i n pr i so n s y st em l i m i ts the o ffe ns e o fmaking f a l s e s t a t e men t s t o p r i s o n sta f fto s t a t e men t s ma de “o ut si de th e co m pl aintr ev i ew sys te m , ” W i s. Adm i n. Code § D O C 30 3. 271, the pla i nti ffhad no r eas on t o f earthathi s fi l i ng a gr i evance (th e com pla i nt to wh i ch the r egu lati on r efer s) abo ut al l ege d ret al i ati on f orN o. 12

- 2568 3 spe ak i ngup ab o utthe a l le g ed as sa ul t woul d b e puni s h e d

. T h e g r i e v a n c e r o u t e w a s o p e n t o h i m. H e ar gu es tha t he was de te r r ed f r o m fi l i ngthe g r i ev an ce b y “ f ea r o fr ep risal

. ” Buthe ha s pr es en te d no e v i de nc e t o s ub s t a nt i a t e the c l a i m, tho ug h i nv i t e d t o do so b y the d istr i ctj udg e be f o r e th e j udg e r ul ed o n, a nd g r a nt e d, the de f e nd a nt s ’ mo t i o n f o r s ummar y j ud g men t. W i thout som e speci fi cati on of w hat the pla i nti ff’s fe ar w as base d on, the defe n dants co uld notpre pare a re sponse; and so the gr ant o fsum m ar y j u d gm ent was p ro p er . Ric civ. D i St e

f ano , 557 U

. S. 557, 586 (2009 ). Bu t in the c ou rs e o fo ur r ese ar ch f orthi s ca se w e di scove re d that the l aw go ver ni n g unavai l abi l i ty ofpri son r e m e d ies on groun d s of intim idat ion i s in som e d isarr ay . The c ase law di st i ng ui sh es b etwee n “ o bj ec ti ve ” an d “s ubj ec ti ve ” av ai l ab i l i ty, a nd a l th o ug h the di ff er en t sta nd ar ds ar e r ea so nabl y wel l speci fi ed i t i s uncl ear w hetherthe pr iso ner shoul d be r equi re d to sat i sfy b oth i n eve rycas e. The “ o bj ec ti ve ” st an dar d, w hi chpr edo m i na te s i n the case l aw , r equi re s the pl ai nti ffto show thata perso n of “or din ar y fi rm ness” would have been deter re d fr om fili n g a gr iev an c e. E .g., H em ph ill v. New Yo rk, 38 0 F

. 3d 680, 68 8 (2 d Cir

. 20 04)

. The “s ubj ecti ve” sta nd ar d requi re s th e p lain tiff t o s h ow th at h e w as in fa c t d et er re d . E .g., T u r n e rv . B urn side, sup ra , 54 1 F

. 3d at 1085

. Cases that em bra ce the subj ectiv e standard add i t t o the obj ecti ve on e ra th er th an su b st itu tin g it, e.g ., id .; Tuc k el v. G rov er, s up ra , 660 F.3d at 125 4, w ith th e resu lt that th e plaintiff m u st sh ow b ot h th at a p er so n of ord in ar y firm n es s w ou ld4 N o. 12

- 2568 b e d et er re d an d th at h e h im se l fw a s d et er re d . Th e a d d itio na l t es t ca tc he s th e per so n o fmor e th ano r dinary fi r m ne ss who , n ot ha vingi n f ac t be ende te r r ed, ha s no excuse f orf ai l i ng to exhaust adm i ni str ati ve re m edi es; hewas not a vi cti m o finti m i dation , but onl y o fan a t t e mpta ti nt i mi da t i o n tha tf a i l e d. The obj ecti ve sta nd ar d app ears to have or i gi nated i n case s in w hi ch the i ssue w as not exhausti on o fadm i ni str ati ve re m edi es but wh etherso m e wrongful act of pri son perso nnel had i nfl i cted a com pensabl e inj ury on th e p ris on er p lain tiff. Se e, e.g ., D a vis v . Go o rd, 320 F. 3d 34 6, 35 3 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 3) , c i te d i n H em ph ill v. New Yo rk, sup ra , 380 F.3d at 688. In su ch cases th e cou rts ri gh tly re q u ire th atthe i nj ur y b e m o r e th an de m inim is , that i s, m ore th an triv ial; an d if a p er so n of “o rd in ar y firm n es s” w ou ld co ns i derthe i nj ur y t r i vi al, thi s ca n b e use d a s a be nc hm ar kf o r whethe r the pa r ti cul arpl aint i ff su st aine d no m or e tha n a t riv i ali nj ury that the l aw sho uld i gnor e. Se e, e.g ., B a rt v . Te l

fo rd, 677 F.2d 622 , 625 (7th C ir. 1982); Hil l v . L ap pin , 6 3 0 F.3d 46 8, 47 2-7 3 (6 th C ir. 20 10 ); M orris v. Po we ll , 4 4 9 F.3d 68 2, 68 5-8 6 (5 th C ir. 20 06 ); D avi s v. G o o rd, sup ra , 320 F.3d at35 3; Be n n e t tv . He n drix , 4 23 F

. 3d 12 47, 1 25 0- 52 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 5)

. I t is a cr ude b en ch

m ar k, however, bec ause the pl ai ntiff m ay be ofunusual susceptibi l i ty

— w hat in or dinar y t or t l aw i s ca l l ed an “e g g s h e l l s k u l l ” t o r tv i c t i m. T h e c o mmo n l a w a l l o ws su cha t o r t vi ct i m t o r ec o ve r hi s ful l da m ag es e ve n i fthe averag e pe rson, w hich i s t o say a pe rson of “ord inary fi rm ne ss,” w ou ld h ave su staine d no signifi can t inj ury fro m th e d efe n d an t’s to rt . E .g., Sto les o n v . U nited Sta tes , 708 F. 2d 12 17, 12 21- 22 ( 7th Ci r. 19 83)

. One i m agi nesN o. 12

- 2568 5 ther e a re “e ggs hel l skull ” pri sone rs , and the questi on ar i ses w h y th ey can’ t r eco verthei r actualdam age s caused byvi ola tio ns o fthei r f edera l r i ghts by pri son per so nne l, o r, i n a c as e l i k e th is, b e ex cus ed f o r ha ving f ai l ed to fi l e a gr i evance thatthe aver age p er son w ou ld rea lize w as av aila b l e b u t t h at an es p ec ially f ear ful or anxi ous or m ental l y l i m i ted pri sone r w oul d not. T h e o b j ec tio n to su c h an ap p ro ac h is th at id ios y n c r a t ic cl ai m s a re di ffi cul t t o ver i fy unl ess , as i n th e m ost c o mm o n k i nd o fe g g s he l l

- s k ul l c a s e , the c l a i man t has a re adil y di agno sabl e physi cali m pai rm ent. A pri sone r pla i nti ffwh o had fa i l ed to fi l e a gr i evance co u ld al w ays i nsi st that hi s f ai l ure w as att ributabl e t o a m en ta l pr o bl em th atha d c au se d hi m to e xa g g er at e th e l i kel i hood thathe woul d b e pu ni shed i fhe di d fi l e a gr i evance . A nd then the i ssue ofexhausti on, m eant to be p reli m inary to the de term ination of the p lai nt iff’ s const i tu tio n alto rtcl ai m , would r equi re f ori ts re sol uti on signifi can t factfi nd in g even before the trialon th e m eri ts

— f actfi nd i ng tha t would have to be du pli cate d i fthe c ase w en t to t r i ala nd r et al i at i o n wer e th e co ns ti tu
ti onalto rtal l ege d as wel l as t h e e xcuse t endered f or failin g t o file a grie va n c e i n a d v a n c e o f su it. C f. Pavey v . C o nley, 544 F.3d 73 9, 74 2 (7 th C i r . 2 00 8). E x p er t t es tim ony by psych olo gi sts o r psychi atr i sts m i ght b e r eq u ire d . Th at w ou ld co m p lica te a n d e x te n d th e e videnti ar y hea ri ng r equi red w heneverther e was a gen ui ne f a c t ua l di s pu t e o v e r wh e the r the p l a i nt i ffhad exhausted hi s pri son re m edi es. W hat the c as es have not consi dered, however, i s a si tuati on i n w hi ch prison per sonnel, se nsi ng atypi cal6 N o. 12

- 2568 cogni ti ve orpsycho l ogi cali nfi rm i ti es ofthe pri sone r pla i nti ff, d el iber ate l y e xploi t these i nfi rm i ti es to deter hi m fro m fi l in g a gr i evance . That would be the ki nd o f m i sco nd uct that t h e doctr i ne o fequi tabl e e sto pp el m ake s a defense to a va ri etyo fcl ai m s a nd defenses , m os t c om m on ly a st at u te of lim ita tio n s d efe n se . See , e.g., A rteag a v. U nit ed S ta tes , 711 F.3d 828 , 833 (7th C ir. 2013). I n Kaba v. St epp , sup ra , 45 8 F

. 3d at 68 6-87, we l eft o pen the pos sibi l i ty that equi tabl e e sto pp elm i ght b e a d e f e n s e t o f a i l u r e t o e xh a us tp r i s o n r e me d i e s . We need not deci de; the prese nt case i s re m ote fro m that hy po th et i ca l s i tu at i o n. A FFI RMED .

7- 23- 13