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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 27 29

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ And re Po rte r

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mat t St ur m , MDOC Div Dire ct or of Ad ul t Gri ev an ces ; Li sa Jo ne s, M DOC Co ns ti tu at e Offi cer

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

an t s

Dav e Dor m ire , Prio r W ard en at J CCC

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Bi ll Gall owa y , Ass is ta nt W ard en at J CCC

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

an t

Dav id W eb st er, Fu nc ti on al Uni t M an ag er

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Ju dy W eb st er, Cl as si fic at io ns Cas ewo rk er

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

an t

Edwar d R

up pe l, Cl as si fic at io ns Cas ewo rk er

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

an t - Ap pe ll eePau l Go re, Gri ev an ce Offi cer; Leon ard Neff, Co rrec ti on s Off ic er I; Ch ris Kos te r, Mi ss ou ri At to rn ey

Gene ral ; Ca le b M . Lewis , Ass is ta nt Att or ne y Gene ral

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

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 10 , 20 14 Fil ed : M arch 23 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

And re Po rte r, an in m at e, su ed of fic ia ls of th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s (MDOC) f

o r ret al ia ti on un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. The di st ric t co ur t
gr an te d th em su m

m ary jud gm en t aft er di sm is si ng Po rte r’s cl ai m fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t

rem ed ie s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t affi rm s in pa rt, an d

va cat es an d re m an ds in pa rt.

I.

On Decem

be r 3, 20 09 , a g u a r d ga ve Po rte r’s un it m an ag er a le tt er fo un d in fro nt of hi s fo rm er cel l. The le tt er, ad dr es se d to Gov ern or J a y N i x o n wit h Po rte r’s

na m e on th e ret ur n add res s, sai d it co nt ai ne d ant hr ax

. The m an ag er be li ev ed Po rte r

wro te th e le tt er , a l t ho ug h he kn ew th at an in m at e ne ar Po rte r’s fo rm er cel l ha d
t h r e a t e n e d “ to ge t” Po rte r, cau si ng Po rte r’s tra ns fer to a di ffer en t ho us in g un it t w o week s earl ie r. An in de pe nd en t in ve st ig at io n co nc lu de d th at a di ffer en t in m at e wro te

-2

-th e le tt er bu t reco m m en de d a fo ren si c ha nd writ in g ex am

. The m an ag er an d ward en to ok no fur th er ac ti on

.

Thre e m on th s la te r, Po rte r fil ed an un rel at ed § 19 83 cas e ag ai ns t th e m an ag er, ward en , and ot he rs . On May 25 , 20 10 , se ve ral de fen da nt s were di sm is se d from th e

cas e, in cl ud in g th e m an ag er an d ward en

. On Ju ne 18 , th e Att or ne y Gen eral (h av in g waiv ed ser vi ce o f pr oc es s) ap pe ared for th e rem ai ni ng de fen da nt

.

Twelv e da y s la t er, th e m an ag er, wit h th e ward en ’s su pp or t, wro te a co nd uc t vi ol at io n ag ai ns t Po rte r fo r t h e an th rax th reat de sp it e th e in ve st ig at io n’s res ul ts

m on th s earl ie r. On Ju ly 6, a di sc ip li na ry he ari ng fo un d Po rte r “ Gui lt y .” The he ari ng rel ie d so le ly on th e m an ag er’s accu sa ti on an d di d no t “ co ns ul t” th e in ve st ig at io n. On Ju ly 8, Por te r was ass ig ne d t o a dm in is tra ti ve seg reg at io n.

To c on te st vi ol at io ns , in m at es m us t fo ll ow a th ree- st ep gr ie va nc e pr oc es s. Fi rs t, an in m at e fil es an In fo rm al Res ol ut io n Req ue st (IRR ). If di ss at is fie d wit h th e

res po ns e to th e IRR, th e in m at e fil es a fo rm al gr ie va n ce. MDOC Depa rtment Man ua l , D5- 3.2 Offen de r Grie va nc e, III.L.1 (2 00 9)

. If di ss at is fie d wit h th e res po ns e to th e gr ie va nc e, th e in m at e ap pe al s with in se ve n days, or th e ap pe al is “ co ns id ered ab an do ne d.” Id

. at III.M .1. “ Aft e r r e c ei vi ng th e ap pe al res po ns e, th e of fen de r ha s

ex ha us te d th e gr ie va nc e pr oc es s.” Id

. at III.M .12

. “ Exp ira ti on of th e res po ns e ti m e li m it at an y st ag e of th e pr oc es s sh al l al lo w th e gr ie va nt to m ov e to th e ne xt st ag e of th e p ro ces s.” Id

. at I II.K.9 ( IRRs ); I II.L.18 (gr ie va nc es ).

On Ju ly 14 , Po rte r fil ed a ti m el y I R R

. A c c or di ng to th e Man ua l, an IRR

“ sh ou ld be res po nd ed to as so on as pr act ic al , bu t wit hi n 40 cal en da r da y s of rece ip t.” Id

. at I II.K.6.e . Port er n ev er re cei ve d a res po ns e to th e IRR

.

On Ju ly 20 , Po rte r ha d a se co nd di sc ip l i n a r y he ari ng on th e an th rax ch arg e. Thi s ti m e, he was fo un d “ Not Gui lt y ” wit h a reco m m en da ti on to di sm is s an d ex pu ng e

-3

-hi s vi ol at io n. O n Aug us t 5, th e ward en ov erru le d th e reco m m en da ti on , rei ns ta ti ng hi s ad m in is tra ti ve seg reg at io n.

On Aug us t 25 , st il l in se gr eg at io n, Po rte r su bm it te d a ti m el y gr ie va nc e. Po rte r cl ai m ed th at th e ward en vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s in ret al ia ti on fo r hi s un rel at ed § 19 83 cas e. Acco rd in g to th e Man ua l: “ The su pe rin te nd en t/ de si g n e e sh ou ld

res po nd to of

fen de r gr ie va nc es wit hi n 40 cal en da r da y s o f rec ei pt .” Id

. at III.L.9 .e.

On Octo be r 19 , o ve r 40 da y s aft er th e res po ns e was du e, Po rte r req ue st ed an ap pe al for m . Th e ne xt da y , h e rece iv ed a le tt er fro m th e MDOC n ot ifyin g h im th at th e “ in ve st ig at io n reg ard in g t hi s m at te r is co m pl et e, an d e vi de nc e was no t fo un d to im pl ic at e y ou in th is m at te r. You were no t is su ed a co nd uc t vi ol at io n e it he r.” The le tt e r a l s o s ta te d, “ W hi le I am un su re why y ou are pu rs ui ng ap pe al of th is m at te r, whi ch ha s be en res ol ve d in y ou r fav or , I do no te y ou r gr ie va nc e

. . . is pe nd in g fin al

res po ns e at th e gr ie va nc e le ve l. Pl eas e rem ai n pa ti en t as th at rev ie w is co m pl et ed .” Po rte r rece iv ed th e ap pe al fo rm on Octo b e r 29 , te n da y s aft er req ue st in g it

. On Nov em be r 4, st il l in se gr eg at io n, Po rte r ap pe a l e d t he MDOC’s la ck of a “ fin al

res po ns e” to hi s gr ie va nc e. Po rte r was no t rel eas ed fro m se gr eg at io n un ti l he se rv ed 1 th e fi ve -m on th pu ni sh m en t fo r th e v io la ti on

.

On Octo be r 27 , 2 01 1— m or e th an 14 m on th s aft er Po rte r fil ed hi s gr ie va nc e fo rm —t he ne w ward en fin al ly res po nd ed to th e gr ie va nc e in a se pa rat e m em o. The

res po ns e co nf

irmed th e di sm is sa l and ex pu ng em en t of th e vi ol at io n an d ap ol og iz ed

The Nov em

be r 20 10 ap pe al sh ou ld ha ve be en res ol ve d wi th in 10 0 d ay s, b ut 1 Po rte r’s of

fic er ne ve r fil ed th e ap pe al

. Se e id

. at III.M .6 (“ An ap pe al res po ns e sh ou ld be pr ov id ed as so on as pr act ic al , bu t wit hi n 10 0 cal en da r da y s of rece ip t.”)

. On Apr il 6, 20 11 , aft e r l e arn in g th at hi s ap pe al was ne ve r fil ed , Po rte r wro te th e MDOC to

no ti fy th em of t he ap pe al , st res si ng th at hi s vi ol at io n ha d no t y et be en res ol ve d or
ex pu ng ed

. On Octo be r 5, he se nt a si m il ar le tt er to th e Gov ern or (wh ic h was refe rred to th e MDOC)

. -4

-fo r th e de la y

. On Nov em be r 2, Po rte r si gn ed hi s gri ev an ce form , ch eck in g th e bo x,

“ I Accep t th is Deci si on ” (an d di d no t ch e ck “ I App eal th is Deci si on ”). He ne ve r

rece iv ed a res po ns e to h i s Nov em be r 20 10 ap pe al , an d he ne ve r ap pe al ed th e ward en ’s Octo be r 20 11 fin al res po ns e.

On Nov em

be r 23 , Po rte r fil ed pr o se th is § 19 83 cas e, al le gi ng th at th e co nd uc t vi ol at io n wa s un la wfu l ret al ia ti on fo r hi s un rel at ed § 19 83 cas e, vi ol at in g hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e cl ai m fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t rem ed ie s

an d g ran te d s um m ary jud gm en t fo r th e d efen da nt s.

II.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g fact s m os t fav or ab ly to t he no nm ov an t. Tor ge rs on v. Cit

y of Ro ches te r , 64 3 F .3d 10 31 , 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er “ if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere i s n o g en ui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a )

.

An in m at e m

us t ex ha us t al l av ai la bl e ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s be fo re br in gi ng

a § 19 83 su it

. 42 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a ) ; Jo nes v. Bo ck , 54 9 U.S. 19 9, 21 1 (2 00 7) ; Bur ns v. Ea to n , 75 2 F .3d 11 36 , 11 41 (8t h Cir. 20 14 ). Avai la bl e rem ed ie s ar e “ cap ab le of

us e fo r th e acco m

pl is hm en t of a pu rp os e: im m ed ia te ly ut il iz ab le [an d ] acce ss ib le .” Mi ll er v. Nor ri

s , 24 7 F.3 d 73 6, 74 0 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (fi nd in g ex ha us ti on do es no t
req ui re us e of “ al l ” rem ed ie s)

. An in m at e sa ti sf ie s § 19 97 e(a) by pu rs ui ng “ th e pr is on gr ie va nc e p ro ces s t o i ts fin al st ag e” t o “ an ad ve rs e d eci si on on th e m eri ts .” Bur ns , 75 2 F.3 d at 11 41

. It do es no t m at te r th at th e in m at e “ su bjec ti ve ly be li ev ed th at th ere

was no po in t in hi s pu rs ui ng ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s.” Lyo n v. V an de Kr ol , 30 5 F.3 d 80 6, 80 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 2 ) ( e n b a nc ). Non ex ha us ti on is an affi rm at iv e de fen se , an d de fen da nt s ha ve th e bu rd en of rai si ng an d pr ov in g th e ab se nc e of ex ha us ti on

. Jo nes , 54 9 U.S. at 21 1- 12

.

-5

-The qu es ti on he re is : “ W as th ere a pr oc ed ur e av ai la bl e? ” Se e Lyo n , 30 5 F.3 d

at 80 9. The rem ed ie s av ai la bl e to Po rte r were th e IRR, th e fo rm al gr ie va nc e, an d th e ap pe al fro m th at gr ie va nc e. To ex ha us t al l av ai la bl e r e m ed ie s, Po rte r ne ed ed to
ap pe al fro m th e ward en ’s Oc to be r 20 11 gr ie va nc e res po ns e, ev en i f h e b el ie ve d an ap pe al wou ld be in effe ct iv e. Se e id

. I ns te ad of ch oo si ng “ I App eal th is Deci si on ,” he ch os e “ I Accep t t hi s Dec is io n,” ab an do ni ng hi s cl ai m

.

Po rte r arg ue s th at hi s Nov em be r 20 10 ap pe al ex ha us te d hi s rem ed ie s. Howev er, th at ap pe al ad dr es se d on ly th e MDOC’s refu sa l to pr ov id e a fin al res po ns e

an d is n o t a n ap pe al fro m an “ ad ve rs e gr ie va nc e de ci si on .” Thi s co ur t ne ed no t de ci de whet he r Po rte r’s rem ed ie s were effe ct iv el y ex ha us te d in th e p eri od be twee n hi s N o v e mber 20 10 ap pe al an d th e ward en ’s Octo be r 20 11 fin al res po ns e, si nc e Po rte r di d n ot fil e th is su it du rin g t ha t year.

Po rte r al so a rg ue s th at si nc e th e res po ns e was in a m em o se pa rat e fro m th e gr i e v a n c e fo rm , th ere was no “ de ci si on ” on th e fo rm fo r hi m to acce pt

. Thi s arg um en t ha s no m eri t— Po rte r ha d th e op po rtu ni ty t o a p p e a l th e al le ge d te ch ni cal

erro r. In Bur n s, th e pl ai nt iff d i d n o t e x h a u st hi s rem ed ie s be cau se he ha d no t
req ue st ed rev ie w of hi s di st in ct § 19 83 cl ai m s be fo re as se rti ng th em in fed eral co ur t. Bur ns , 75 2 F.3 d at 11 41

. Si m il arl y , Po rte r di d no t req ue st rev ie w of an y is su e in th e gr ie va nc e res po ns e be fo re as se rti ng hi s § 19 83 cl ai m

. Thu s, Po rte r acce pt ed th e fin al

res po ns e an d d id no t p ur su e th e MDOC’s g rie va nc e p ro ces s t o i ts fin al st ag e.

Po rte r se em s to cl ai m he is ex cu se d fro m ex ha us ti ng rem ed ie s be cau se pr is on of fic ia ls wit hh el d gr ie va nc e p ro ced ur es

. In m at es are ex cu se d fro m ex ha us ti ng

rem ed ie s “ whe n of

fic ia ls ha ve pr ev en te d pr is on ers fro m ut il iz in g th e pr oc ed ur es , or whe n of fic ia ls th em se lv es ha ve fai le d to co m pl y wit h th e gr ie va nc e pr oc e du res .” Gib s o n v . W

e b e r , 43 1 F.3 d 33 9, 34 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ [A] rem ed y th at pr is on of fic ia ls pr ev en t a pr is on er fro m ‘uti li z[i ng ]’ is no t a n ‘avai la bl e’ rem ed y un de r § 19 97 e(a)

. . . .” Mi ll

er , 24 7 F.3 d at 74 0 (s eco nd a l t e r a t i o n i n or ig in al ) (fi nd in g

-6

-rem ed ie s no t “ av ai la bl e” whe re pr is on of fic ia ls fai le d to res po nd to in m at e’s req ue st s fo r gr ie va nc e fo rm s)

. Se e al so Ser ge nt v. Nor ri

s , 33 0 F .3d 10 84 , 10 85 -8 6 (8t h Cir. 20 03 ) (p er cu ria m ) (fi nd in g pr is on of fic ia l’s fai lu re to t i mely res po nd to gr ie va nc e

co ul d sh ow in m at e ha d ex ha us te d “ av ai la bl e” rem ed ie s) ; Fo ul k v. Cha rr ie r , 26 2 F.3 d 68 7, 69 7- 98 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (fi nd in g in m at e m ay ha ve ex ha us te d rem ed ie s whe n MDOC p ris on off

ic ia ls refu se d t o re sp on d t o IR R).

The de la y s in res po nd in g to Po rte r are ap pa ren tl y un jus ti fie d. Howev er, th ey di d no t pr ev en t hi m fro m ut il iz in g gr ie va n c e pr oc ed ur es , an d th e of fic ia ls ’ no nco m pl ia nc e di d no t cau se rem ed ie s to be un av ai la bl e. Unl ik e th e pl ai nt iff s in Mil le r

an d Fou lk , Po rte r was ab le to fil e a gr ie va nc e an d ev en tu al ly r e c e i v e a res po ns e (d es pi te th e MDOC’s fai lu re to res po nd to hi s IRR an d hi s ap pe al whi le hi s gr ie va nc e

was pe nd in g)

. Cf

. Mi ll er , 24 7 F.3 d at 74 0; Fo ul k , 26 2 F.3 d at 69 7- 98

. Po rte r do es

no t al le ge h e t r i e d to ap pe al whe n he acce pt ed th e de ci si on , th at pr is on of fic ia ls
pr ev en te d hi m fro m ap pe al in g, or th at th ey to ld hi m an y rem ed ie s were un av ai la bl e. Se e Ser ge nt , 33 0 F.3 d at 10 86 (fi nd in g th at , al th ou gh gr ie v a n c e r e s ol ut io n was

un ti m el y , in m at e was not “ pr even te d fro m effe ct iv el y ut il iz in g gr ie va nc e pr oc ed ur es ” be cau se he rece iv ed a res po ns e an d w a s a b l e t o ap pe al ). Aware of th e gr ie va nc e pr oc ed ur e, he free ly ch os e no t to pu rs ue th e fin al st ag e aft er he rece iv ed hi s

res ol ut io n.

Po rte r di d no t ex ha us t hi s rem ed ie s in acco rd an ce wit h 42 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a)

. Dis m is sa l wi th ou t preju di ce is m an da to ry

. Ha m m et t v. Co fie ld , 68 1 F .3d 94 5, 9 49 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (p er c u r ia m ) (aff irming , in pa rt, di sm is sa l wit ho ut pr ejud ic e fo r § 19 97 e(a) fai lu re to ex ha us t); Wa sh in gt on v. Uner , 27 3 Fed

. App x. 57 5, 57 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ) (m od ifyin g di s t r i c t c o ur t’s di sm is sa l to cl ari fy th at § 19 97 e(a) fai lu r e t o ex ha us t is di sm is se d wit ho ut pr ejud ic e); Ma dd ix v. Cr aw

fo rd , 21 6 Fed

. App x. 6 05 , 60 6 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m ) (s am e).

-7

-Thi s co ur t ne ed no t rev ie w Po rte r’s cas e on th e m eri ts or op in e on th e su m m ary jud gm en t. Se e Jo nes , 54 9 U.S. at 21 1 (“ Th e re is no qu es ti on th at ex ha us ti on is

2

m an da to ry un de r th e PLRA an d th at un ex ha us te d c l a i ms can no t be br ou gh t in

co ur t.”) ; Lyo n , 30 5 F

. 3d at 80 9 (h ol di ng an in m at e “ m us t fir st ha ve ex ha us te d hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s pu rs ua nt to th e gr ie va nc e pr oc ed ur e of th e pr is on be fo re hi s ci vi l rig ht s co m

pl ai nt co ul d pr oc eed ”); Ba rb ee v. Co rr . Med

. Ser vs . , 39 4 Fed

. App x. 33 7, 33 7 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 0 ) (p er cu ria m ) (aff irming di sm is sa l wit ho ut pr ejud ic e bu t

va cat in g g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t).

* * * * * * *

The di sm is sa l is affi rm ed , su m m ary jud gm en t va cat ed , an d th e cas e rem an de d wit h d ire ct io ns to di sm is s wi th ou t p reju di ce.

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

Afte r or al arg um en ts on ap pe al , P or te r fil ed a pr o se mo t i o n f o r pr el im in ary 2 in jun ct io n an d te m

po rary res tra in in g or de r. In li gh t of th is op in i on , hi s m ot io n is de ni ed

. -8

-