UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Warren E. Peterson

v. Case No. 05-cv-55-PB

Opinion No. 2006 DNH 146

Jane Coplan, Former Warden 

NH State Prison, Mary Ann 

Wareing, former Dietician at

the NHSP, Christian Lanman, C.O.,

and Richard Caouette, C.O.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Warren E. Peterson, proceeding pro se, brings this 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action against Jane Coplan, Former Warden NH State Prison,

Mary Ann Wareing, former Dietician at the NHSP, Christian Lanman,

C.O., and Richard Caouette, C.O. for alleged violations of his

Eighth Amendment rights. Peterson, an inmate incarcerated in

NHSP’s Concord, New Hampshire facility, alleges that defendants

denied him adequate medical and mental health care and a medical

diet. Peterson seeks monetary relief for defendants’ alleged

past offenses. 

Defendants’ have moved for summary judgment arguing that

Peterson failed to exhaust administrative remedies as is required 
1 “The process is explained in the ‘Manual for Guidance of

Inmates,’ a copy of which is provided to all inmates upon their

arrival at the correctional facility. It is also outlined in the

New Hampshire Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure 

Directive (“PPD”) 1.16, entitled ‘Complaints and Grievances by 

Persons under DOC Supervision,’ another publication widely

available to inmates.” Lafauci v. New Hampshire Dep’t of

Corrections, 2001 DNH 204, 7-10. 

-2-

by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”). 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). Peterson filed an objection claiming, among other

things, that he properly exhausted all administrative remedies

available. 

In order to exhaust administrative remedies in this context,

a New Hampshire State Prison inmate challenging his conditions of

confinement must submit (1) an inmate request slip, (2) a

grievance to the Warden, and (3) a grievance to the Commissioner. 

Lafauci v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Corrections, 2005 DNH 029, 37-

38; Exh. 3.1 Defendants contend that Peterson failed to satisfy

step (1) because he failed to include a substantive complaint in

his inmate request slip. They also argue that Peterson failed to

satisfy step (3) because he never filed a grievance with the

Commissioner. 

Peterson objects, claiming that he satisfied all steps

required for exhaustion. He has submitted documentation
-3-

sufficient to show exhaustion as to steps (1) and (2). He has

also provided some documentary support for his claim that he

mailed his grievance to the Commissioner on September 18, 2002,

but that the prison mail service failed to deliver it. 

After reviewing the motions and supporting documents, I have

determined that there is a genuine dispute of material fact that

precludes summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. Because

failure to exhaust is a bar to Peterson’s substantive claim, I

decline to consider the merits of Peterson’s substantive claim

prior to the resolution of the exhaustion issue. Accordingly, I

deny without prejudice defendants’ motion for summary judgment

(Document No. 28) in its entirety and refer the case to the

Magistrate Judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether

Peterson properly exhausted his administrative remedies. 

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge shall determine whether

Peterson mailed a grievance to the Commissioner on September 18,

2002, as he claims. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 18, 2006
-4-

cc: Warren E. Peterson, pro se

Mary E. Maloney, Esq