Source: https://casetext.com/case/martin-v-catalanotto
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 15:34:53
Document Index: 462742543

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 15', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1997']

Martin v. Catalanotto, 895 F.2d 1040 | Casetext
Martin v. Catalanotto
895 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1990)
Martinv.Catalanotto
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitMar 7, 1990
In Martin v. Catalanotto, 895 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1990), we held that a prisoner seeking only money damages…
Gibson v. Barnes
Although arguably it could be maintained that the "request for a duty status," and the denial of same by Dr.…
holding that the administrative remedy procedures promulgated by Louisiana meet section 1997e's minimum requirements
Summary of this case from Marsh v. Jones
recognizing that the prison grievance procedures set up by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections meet section 1997e's minimal requirements
Summary of this case from Arvie v. Stalder
Nos. 88-3300, 88-3387.
Martin filed suit against three correctional officers at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Michael Catalanotto, S. Poret, and Lieutenant Turner. Martin asserts that after he requested protection from an enemy, Catalanotto and Poret beat him while he was handcuffed and shackled. He alleges that the two then called Lieutenant Turner and all three men then assaulted him. He asserts that after the beating, the three guards refused to provide him with medical attention. Martin seeks monetary damages to compensate him for the injuries he received as a result of the beating.
Section 1997e of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, or CRIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, authorizes states to set up prison grievance procedures which district courts can order prisoners to exhaust before proceeding with their civil rights suits. Section 1997e requires these procedures to be approved by the Attorney General or a federal district court as meeting certain minimum standards before a court can order exhaustion of the procedure. Section 1997e is an exception to § 1983's normal non-exhaustion rule and is not intended to apply when a § 1983 action "raises issues which cannot, in all probability, be resolved by the grievance resolution system, including cases where imminent danger to life is alleged. Allegations unrelated to conditions of confinement, such as those which center on events outside of the institution, would not appropriately be continued for resolution by the grievance resolution system." Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 2565 n. 12, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982) (quoting legislative history). Under § 1997e district courts can only order the exhaustion of "such plain, speedy, and effective administrative remedies as are available." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(1).
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b)(2)(A)-(E).
Pursuant to enabling legislation, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 15:1171-1177 (West Supp. 1989), the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections set up such a procedure for Louisiana prisoners. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana approved the procedure as meeting § 1997e's minimum standards.
Although we have held that the dismissal of a Louisiana prisoner's § 1983 suit for failure to exhaust the Louisiana prison grievance procedure is within the discretion of the district court, Lay v. Anderson, 837 F.2d 231, 233 (5th Cir. 1988); Rocky v. Vittorie, 813 F.2d 734, 736 (5th Cir. 1987), we have not addressed the propriety of dismissal for failure to exhaust in a case in which the prisoner seeks damages for personal injury. Martin and Williams admit that the Louisiana procedure does not exempt their claims from exhaustion, but argue that since the Louisiana procedure does not authorize officials to grant the remedy they seek, a money judgment, Mack v. State, 529 So.2d 446, 448 (La.App. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 533 So.2d 359 (1988), it is not an "effective" remedy within the meaning of § 1997e which they can be ordered to exhaust.
Yet, the reality is that underlying many prisoner suits for money damages is a complaint about prison conditions, conditions which can be remedied through the grievance procedure. After adoption of the administrative remedy South Carolina experienced a 33% decrease in 1983 suits by prisoners. California prisoners received complete or partial relief in over half of 40,000 grievances considered.
Donald P. Lay, Exhaustion of Grievance Procedures for State Prisoners Under Section 1997e of the Civil Rights Act, 71 Iowa L.Rev. 935 (1986).
The statutory procedure strikes for nonjudicial resolution of disputes within the prison system. It does not deny prisoners access to federal court, but rather delays access by insisting on an exhaustion of the prison grievance system. We would emasculate the statute if we were to conclude in a mechanical fashion that asserting a claim for money damages means a fortiori that the complaint raises no issues that can in probability be resolved by the grievance procedure. We know from much experience that many of these claims for "damages," often for millions of dollars, prove to be little more than expressions of anger and frustration with prison conditions. This being the case, the grievance process can be effective in resolving a prisoner's claim even though his allegations suggest that the grievance procedure is not an effective remedy. When a claim is truly for money damages, it will be filed in federal court after exhaustion.
A study for the Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction of the Judicial Conference noted that prisoner civil rights suits in the Middle District of Louisiana have decreased 33% since judicial approval of that state's procedure. Other factors may have contributed to this decrease, but some part was plainly attributable to the grievance procedure.