# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 24 68

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ro dn ey Mi nt er; Ant ho ny Berto lo ne

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Je rry Bart ru ff, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Dire ct or of t he IDOC, et a l.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__

__ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__

__ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 12 , 20 19 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, KE LLY, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Io wa in m at es Ro dn ey Mi nt er an d Ant ho ny Bert ol on e br ou gh t t hi s § 19 83

act io n ag ai ns t th e Io wa Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s (“ IDOC”) an d fo ur IDOC of fic ia ls

a c t i n g in th ei r of

fic ia l cap aci ti es , al le gi ng th at IDOC’s ad m in is tra ti on of it s Sex
Offen de r Treat m en t Pro gr am vi ol at es th ei r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s to eq ua l pr ot ect io n, du e p ro ces s, an d n eces sa ry m ed ic al care

. The di st ric t co ur t d is m is se d t he se fed eral
cl ai m s wit ho ut pr ejud ic e fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, as 42 U.S.C.§ 19 97 e(a) req ui res , an d as ba rred by Heck v. Hum ph rey, 51 2 U.S. 47 7 (1 99 4)

. The

co ur t de cl in ed to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er Pl ai nt iff s’ st at e la w cl ai m s

an d di sm is se d th e en ti re act io n. M i n t e r an d Bert ol on e ap pe al

. Rev ie win g th e di sm is sa l of th ei r fed eral cl ai m s un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) de no vo , we rev ers e in pa rt an d

rem an d. See Mar ti n v. Io wa, 75 2 F.3 d 72 5, 72 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w).

I. Ba ck gr ou nd.

Mi nt er an d Bert ol on e were co nv ic te d of Io wa se xu al a b u s e o f f en se s in 20 12

an d 20 13

. Each was se nt en ced to se rv e a l e n g t h y p ris on te rm

. The ir Co m pl ai nt
al le ge s: (i) th ey are req ui red to co m pl et e Io wa’s Sex Offen de r Tr e a t men t Pro gr am (“ SOTP”), a si x to ei gh te en m on th pr og ram ; (ii ) sa ti sf act or y co m

pl et io n of th e SOTP

pr og ram red uc es an in m at e’s se nt en ce by ac c r u i n g e arn ed -ti m e cred it s th at sh or te n hi s da te of di sc ha rg e; (ii i) IDOC of fers th e SOTP pr og ram on ly at a si ng le

,

ov ercr owd ed co rrec ti on al faci li ty; an d (iv ) pl ai nt iff s ar e u na bl e to pa rti ci pa te in th e
pr og ram be cau se of it s li m it e d c a pa ci ty, whi ch un de r Io wa Co de § 90 3A.2 (2 )

pr ev en ts an y red uc ti on of th ei r se nt en ces

. The y al le ge th at ex cl us io n fro m th e SOTP

pr og ram de pr iv es th em of th ei r Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s li be rty rig ht s an d to eq ua l pr ot e c t io n of th e la w, an d th ei r Eig ht h
A m en dm en t rig ht to ne ces sa ry ps y ch ol og ic al or ps y ch ia tri c m ed ic al care

. The
Co m pl ai nt se ek s act ua l an d pu ni ti ve da m ag es , at to rn ey s’ fees

, an d en try of a le ng th y

or de r th at wou ld m an da te th e reca lc ul at io n of earn ed -ti m e cred it s an d effe ct iv el y
req ui re t he di st ric t co ur t t o m ic ro -m an ag e th e IDOC’s SOTP p ro gr am

.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Defen da nt s’ m ot io n to di sm is s wit ho ut pr ejud ic e on

two gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, th e co ur t ru le d th at Pl ai nt iff s fai le d t o e x h a u s t ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s be fo re br in gi ng su it un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83
, as 42 U

. S.C. § 19 97 e(a)

req ui res

. Seco nd

, th e c o u r t r u l e d th at “ su cces s on th ei r cl ai m s wou ld ne ces sa ril y im pl ic at e th e in va li di ty of th ei r lo st earn ed -ti m e cred it s,” and th eref or e th e su it was Heck -b arre d. Pl ai nt iff

s ap pe al

, a r g u i n g Defen da nt s ha ve no t m et th ei r bu rd en to

-2

-es ta bl is h th e affi rm at iv e de fen se of fai lu re to ex ha us t, an d th ei r su it is no t pr ecl ud ed

un de r Heck . W e ag ree wi th th e fi rs t co nt en ti on an d, i n p art , wit h t he sec on d.

II . Fai lu re to Ex ha us t Adm in is tra tiv e Remedies

.

W e are on ce ag ai n c al le d up on to in te rp ret 42 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) , p art of th e Pri so n Li ti ga ti on Refo rm Act o f 19 95 (“ PLRA”):

No act io n sh al l be br ou gh t wit h res pe ct to pr is on co nd it io ns un de r

se ct io n 19 83 of th is ti tl e, or an y ot he r Fed eral la w, by a pr is on er

co nf in ed i n an y

. . . co rrec ti on al faci li ty un ti l su ch ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s as are av ai la bl e are ex ha us te d.

In Bel k v. St at e, th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Io wa he ld th at an in m at e m ay fil e an act io n fo r

st at e po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f un d e r I o wa Co de § 82 2.2 (1 )(e) “ whe n al le gi ng an

un co ns ti tu ti on al de ni al of hi s or he r li be rty in te res t ba se d on th e IDOC’s fai lu re to
of fer SOTP whe n SOTP is a ne ces sa ry pr ereq ui si te to pa ro le .” 90 5 N.W .2d 18 5, 19 1 (Io wa 20 17 ). The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e fed eral cl ai m s m us t be di sm is se d
wit ho ut pr ejud ic e un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) be cau se “ pl ai nt iff s ha ve no t ex ha us te d
th ei r av ai la bl e p os tc on vi ct io n re m ed ie s” un de r Bel k. We di sa gr ee.

The di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at st at e po st -co nv ic ti on ju di ci al rem ed ie s are

“ ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s” th at m us t be ex ha us te d un de r § 19 97 e(a) is co nt rary to th e pl ai n m ean in g of th e st at ut e. The te rm “ ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s” is no t de fin ed in th e PLRA so we lo ok to it s pl ai n m ean in g. Co ns is te nt wit h co m m on un de rs ta nd in g, Bl ack ’s Law Dict io na ry de fin es “ ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y ” as “ [a] no nju di ci al rem ed y
pr ov id ed by an ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy .” B LA C K ’ S L A W D IC T IO N A R Y 13 20 (8 th ed

. 20 04 ). In Io wa, as el se whe re, “ [a] po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in g is a ci vi l act io n.” Bel k,
90 5 N

. W. 2d at 18 8. Defen da nt s ci te no cas e ho ld in g th at po st -co nv ic ti on jud ic ia l

-3

-rem ed ie s are “ ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s” th at m us t be ex ha us te d un de r § 19 97 e(a)

. W e ha ve no t fo un d a n o pi ni on th at ev en ad dr es se s t he qu es ti on

.

Mo reo ve r, req ui rin g ex ha us ti on of st at e jud ic ia l r e med ie s un de r § 19 97 e(a)

wou ld m od ify th e well -es ta bl is he d pr in ci pl e th at ex ha us ti on of st at e rem ed ie s “ is no t

a pr ereq ui si te to an act io n un de r § 19 83
, ” ev en an act io n by a st at e pr is on er. Pat sy

v. Bd

. of Reg en t s of Fl a., 45 7 U.S. 49 6, 50 1, 50 7 (1 98 2) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Thi s li ke ly ex pl ai ns why Co ng res s ch os e to li m it § 19 97 e(a) ex ha us ti on to “ ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s.” As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s rep eat ed ly no te d, a pr im ary pu rp os e of th e PLRA’s m an da to ry

ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t i s -

to red uc e th e qu an ti ty an d im pr ov e th e qu al it y of pr is on er s ui ts

. . . . In

s om e in st an ces , co rrec ti ve act io n ta ke n in res po ns e to an in m at e ’s
gr ie va nc e m ig ht im

pr ov e pr is on ad m in is tra ti on an d sa ti sf y th e in m at e, th ere o bv ia ti ng th e n eed for li ti ga ti on

.

Po rte r v. Nus sl e, 53 4 U.S. 51 6, 52 4- 25 (2 00 2)

, ci ti ng Bo ot h v. Ch ur ne r, 53 2 U.S. 73 1,
73 7 (2 00 1)

. Exh au st io n of st at e jud ic ia l rem ed ie s do es no t se rv e th is pu rp os e (at le as t

no t di rect ly), rei nf

or ci ng ou r co nc lu si on th at “ ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s” sh ou ld be

co ns tru ed co ns is te nt wit h i ts pl ai n m ean in g. Co m pa re Bo ot h, 5 32 U.S. at 7 37 -3 9.

Our co nc lu si on th at Pl ai nt iff s ne ed no t ex ha us t th e st a t e jud ic ia l rem ed y

au th or iz ed in Bel k do es no t en d th e ex ha us ti on in qu iry. Pl ai nt iff s’ § 19 83 su it is an

a c t i o n “ wit h res pe ct to pr is on co nd it io ns ” an d th eref or e is su bjec t to § 19 97 e ( a ) ’s

req ui rem en t t ha t Plai nt iff s exh au st “ su ch ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as are av ai la bl e.”
See Mar ti n, 75 2 F.3 d at 72 7; 18 U.S.C. § 36 26 (g )(2 ). Defen da nt s arg ue th at , “ to th e

ex te nt ap pl ic ab le

, [Pl ai nt iff s] m ay ha ve to pr oc eed wit h an ad m in is tra ti ve gr ie va nc e in th e pr is on ’s gr ie va nc e syste m .” Fai lu re to ex ha us t is an affi rm at iv e de fen se un de r th e PLRA; “ in m at es are no t req ui red to sp eci al ly pl ead or de m on st rat e ex ha us ti on in
th ei r co m pl a i n t s

. ” Jo ne s v. Bo ck

, 54 9 U.S. 19 9, 21 6 (2 00 7)

. Defen da nt s ha ve no t

-4

-id en ti fie d wh at ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s m ay be av ai la bl e, an d i t i s fa r fro m ev id en t
wha t th os e rem ed ie s m ig ht be

. Mo reo ve r, if Defen da nt s id en ti fy a sp eci fic rem ed y , Pl ai nt iff s ha ve th e op po rtu ni ty to co nt es t whe th er th at rem ed y is “ av ai la bl e.” See
Ro ss v. Bl ak e, 13 6 S. Ct

. 18 50
, 18 60 -6 2 (2 01 6) ; Po rte r v. St ur m , 78 1 F.3 d 44 8, 45 1-
52 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5) . Thes e are no t i ss ue s t ha t ca n b e res ol ve d o n t hi s re co rd

.

II I. Are the Cl ai m s H eck -Ba rred ?

Alt ern at iv el y , th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at Pl ai nt iff s “ do no t y et ha ve a cau se of

act io n u nd er § 19 83 ” b ecau se “ su cces s on th ei r cl ai m s wou ld ne ces sa ril y im pl y th e in va li di ty of th ei r lo st earn ed -ti m e cred it s.” Thi s is a m or e co m pl ex is su e, fo r it li es

at th e in te rs ect io n of two di st in ct fe d e r a l r em ed ie s, ha be as co rp us , whi ch req ui res

ex ha us ti on of s ta te rem ed ie s, see 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (b ), an d § 19 83 , whi ch do es no t.
See Heck

, 51 2 U.S. at 48 0- 81
, 49 0- 91 (Tho m as , J., co nc ur ri n g ), 50 1 (So ut er, J.,

co nc ur rin g i n t he jud gm en t).

Goo d- ti m e (o r e a r ne d- ti m e) cred it s us ua ll y sh or te n an in m at e’s se nt en ce. The refo re, whe n an in m at e al le ge s un la wfu l de pr iv at io n of g o o d

- t im e cred it s, th e rel ie f he se ek s is im m ed ia te or sp eed ie r rel eas e fro m im pr is on m en t an d “h i s so le
fed eral rem ed y is a writ of ha be as co rp us .” Prei se r v. Ro dr ig ue z, 41 1 U.S. 47 5, 50 0 (1 97 3)

. In Heck

, t h e C o ur t ap pl ie d th is pr in ci pl e to § 19 83 da m ag e act io ns ,

co nc lu di ng th at , if a jud gm en t in pl ai nt iff ’s fav or in a § 19 83 da m ag e act io n “ wou ld

ne ces sa ril y im

pl y th e in va li di ty o f hi s co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce,” th e act io n “ m us t be
d i s m is se d un le ss th e pl ai nt iff can de m on st rat e th at th e co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce h a s al read y be en in va li da te d.” 51 2 U.S. at 48 7. In Edwar ds v. Bal is ok

, ap pl y in g Heck

, th e Co ur t he ld th at a cl a i m f o r de cl arat or y rel ie f an d da m ag es ba se d on al le ga ti on s

“ th at ne ces sa ril y im

pl y th e in va li di ty” of th e lo ss of go od -ti m e cred it s is no t

co gn iz ab le un de r § 19 83

. 52 0 U.S. 64 1, 64 8 (1 99 7) ; se e Po rtl ey -El v. Bri ll

, 28 8 F.3 d
10 63
, 10 66 (8 th Ci r

. 20 02 ) (“ Hab eas co rp us , no t § 19 83
, is th e ex cl us iv e fed eral

-5

-rem ed y whe n a st at e pr is on er se ek s res to rat io n of go od ti m e cred it s ta ke n away by a

pr is on di sc ip li na ry

pro ceed in g.” ).

In th is cas e, th e Co m

pl ai nt al le ge d th at Defen da nt s’ un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t
de pr iv ed Pla in ti ffs “ of

th ei r st at ut or y

rig ht to accr ue earn ed -ti m e cred it . . . [and ] of

rece iv in g a red uc ti on of se nt en ce up on th ei r co m pl et io n of t h e S O TP

. ” Pl ai nt iff s
req ue st ed da m ag es an d an o r de r req ui rin g “ Defen da nt s to reca lc ul at e

. . . th e Pl ai nt iff s’ accr ue d earn ed -ti m e cred it un de r Io wa Co de se ct io n 90 3A.2 to refl ect each
da y th at th e Pl ai nt iff

s d em on st rat ed go od co nd uc t and a wil li ng ne ss [to pa rti ci pa te ]
de sp it e th e IDOC’s de ci si on to no t pl ace [th em ] in to th e SOTP.” W it ho ut qu es ti on , th is is a cl ai m fo r res to rat io n of earn ed -ti m e cred it s, so ha be as co rp us is th e ex cl us iv e fed eral rem ed y . The d is tri ct co ur t p ro pe rly con cl ud ed th is cla im is Heck -b arre d.

Howev er, th e Co m

pl ai nt al so in cl ud ed an Eig ht h Amen dm en t cl ai m th at

ne ces sa ry m ed ic al care is be in g un co ns ti tu ti on al ly de ni ed

, an d cl ai m s fo r pr os pe ct iv e in junct iv e rel ie f to rem ed y al le ge dl y un co ns ti tu ti on al pr oc ed ur es in ad m in is te rin g th e SOTP pr og ram

. “ Ord in ari ly, a pr ay er fo r su ch pr os pe ct iv e rel ie f wil l no t ‘neces sa ril y im pl y ’ th e in va li di ty of a pr ev io us lo ss of go od -ti m e cred it s, an d so m ay pr op erl y be
br ou gh t un de r § 19 83 .” Bal is ok

, 52 0 U.S. at 64 8; se e Mu ha m m ad v. Cl os e, 54 0 U.S.
74 9, 75 4 (2 00 4) (“ [A]lth ou gh [p ris on pr oc ed ur es ] m ay affe ct th e du rat io n of ti m e to
be se rv ed (b y be ari ng on th e award or rev oc at io n of go od -ti m e cred it s) th at is no t

n e c e s sa ril y so .”). The di st ric t co ur t di d no t co ns id er th es e is su es in di sm is si ng th e

en ti re cas e wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, an d th e reco rd on ap pe al is in ad eq ua te to res ol ve th em

.

Acco rd in gl y , th e ju d g men t of th e di st ric t co ur t is rev ers ed

, an d th e cas e is

rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs no t i nc on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-