Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130826_0001057.C03.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-24 18:30:48
Document Index: 229869162

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1997', '§ 1331', '§ 1291', '§ 1915', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1997']

ROBERT L. SMALL, Appellantv.CAMDEN COUNTY; CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DAVID OWENS; ERIC TAYLOR; DAVID CROSSAN; OFF. NIEVES; JOHN VERNON; JOSEPH WHITTICK; SGT. WORLDS; SERGIO MONROE; JOSEPH WHITTICK; CHARLES WALKER; MELENDEZ; CROSS; COOPER; WEBSTER; LIPKA; CATHY HENDERSON; DEFORGE; HELLENDER; PETTIS; HARRIS; PETER FARLOW; JONES; JOSEPHINE CURLS; STEVE SCHOFIELD; ERIC PATRACCI; JAMES; TISBY; DANIELS; ACCETTI; SIMONS; HICKS; HOLLIMON; WESLEY; RODRIGUEZ;ALKINS; ELLIS; FRANCHECHINI; KIMBERLEE ADAMS; JOHN DOES 1-9; SKILLED NURSING, INC.
Argued: July 10, 2013.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-01363) District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb.
Jennings F. Durand, Esq. Carolyn M. Hazard, Esq. Dechert LLP and Lauren M. Bennett* (Argued) University of Pennsylvania Law School *Eligible Law Student under 3d Cir. L.A.R. 46.3 Counsel for Appellant.
Anne Walters, Esq. (Argued) Cheryl L. Cooper, Esq. Howard L. Goldberg, Esq. Office of County Counsel Counsel for Appellee Camden County.
Thomas J. Decker, Esq. (Argued) Decker & Magaw, Counsel for Appellees Josephine Curls, et al.
Frank Orbach, Esq. Law Offices of Brian Granstrand Counsel for Appellee Cathy Henderson.
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SLOVITER and BARRY, Circuit Judges.
Robert L. Small, an inmate at the Camden County Correctional Facility ("CCCF"), appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action against Camden County, CCCF, approximately thirty individual medical personnel and prison officers, and nine John Does (collectively, "Defendants"), for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as he was required to do by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), 110 Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We will affirm in part and vacate in part.
In late 2009, after the completion of merits discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that Small failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to CCCF's grievance procedures before filing suit.[1] These procedures, which are set forth in CCCF's inmate handbook, are reproduced in full in the Appendix to this Opinion. In broad summary, however, they provide that a prisoner may, within 15 days after a grievable incident, file a formal, written grievance on a grievance form or, if a grievance form is not available, on plain paper. Grievable incidents include violations of civil, constitutional or statutory rights, criminal acts, and unsafe or unsanitary conditions. After a grievance is filed, it is reviewed by a grievance officer who time stamps and logs it into the prison computer system. If improperly filed, the grievance is returned to the prisoner. If properly filed and logged in, it is forwarded to the appropriate Shift Commander to be addressed within 72 hours. If not resolved in that time, it is returned to the grievance officer for review and resolution within 10 days. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the grievance officer's decision, he may appeal, in writing, to the Warden (or his designee) within 10 days. The Warden's decision is final.
On May 11, 2010, the District Court denied Defendants' motions without prejudice and stated its intention to hold an evidentiary hearing to decide the exhaustion issue before reaching any of the other asserted bases for summary judgment. Initially, the Court gave Small the option of having an advisory jury serve as fact finder at the hearing, an option he accepted. Shortly thereafter, however, the Court became aware of our then-recent decision in Drippe v. Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2010), which stated, albeit in dicta, that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a question of law to be determined by the judge. Id. at 782. The Court provided Small with two options: (1) brief the issue further; or (2) withdraw his request for an advisory jury. Small withdrew his request.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1367. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the determination of a failure to exhaust de novo, including whether that determination was properly made by a judge rather than a jury. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 226 (3d Cir. 2004); Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003). We accept the Court's factual conclusions unless clearly erroneous, Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 215 F.3d 407, 409 (3d Cir. 2000), and will, therefore, "upset a finding of fact . . . only if [we have] 'the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 92 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). We must, of course, accord respect to determinations of the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Igbonwa, 120 F.3d 437, 441 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C. , 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)).
In an effort to curb the number of prisoner filings in the federal courts, Congress enacted the PLRA which, as relevant here, mandates that prisoners exhaust internal prison grievance procedures before filing suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006); Spruill, 372 F.3d at 222. The exhaustion provision of the PLRA reads:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. §] 1983, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense the defendant must plead and prove; it is not a pleading requirement for the prisoner-plaintiff. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212, 216–17 (2007); see Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287, 295 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense and finding that the district court erred in imposing an improperly heightened pleading standard that required the prisoner not only to plead, but also to prove, exhaustion in the complaint). Furthermore, the defendant must prove that the prisoner-plaintiff failed to exhaust each of his claims. There is no "total exhaustion" rule permitting dismissal of an entire action because of one unexhausted claim. Jones, 549 U.S. at 220–24.
Small argues that, under the PLRA, a jury, not a judge, should determine factual disputes relating to the issue of exhaustion because Seventh Amendment rights are implicated. In Drippe, however, we stated, unconditionally and in agreement with the Seventh Circuit's holding in Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 740 (7th Cir. 2010), that exhaustion is a question of law to be determined by a judge, even if that determination requires the resolution of disputed facts.[2]Drippe, 604 F.3d. at 781. At issue in Drippe were the timing requirements for raising exhaustion as an affirmative defense, and so our statement, strong as it was, was dicta. We now hold what we so strongly signaled in Drippe, a conclusion that has been reached as well by every one of our sister circuits to have considered the issue.
The Seventh Amendment provides that "[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." U.S. Const. amend. VII. In an action under § 1983, the parties have a right to a jury trial on the merits, City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 709 (1999), but this right does not guarantee resolution by a jury of all factual disputes. Whether the right to a jury trial applies depends upon "the nature of the issue . . . rather than the character of the overall action." Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 538 (1970); see Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 271–72 (5th Cir. 2010).
Under the PLRA, exhaustion is a precondition for bringing suit under § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions . . . until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." (emphasis added)). As such, just as subject-matter jurisdiction, [3] personal jurisdiction, and venue, exhaustion is a "threshold issue that courts must address to determine whether litigation is being conducted in the right forum at the right time." Dillon, 596 F.3d at 272 (emphasis added); see Pavey, 544 F.3d at 741 ("Juries decide cases, not issues of judicial traffic control. Until the issue of exhaustion is resolved, the court cannot know whether it is to decide the case or the prison authorities are to."); cf. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992) (likening the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies to "abstention, finality, and ripeness-that govern the timing of federal-court decisionmaking"); Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 n.9 (1938) (describing exhaustion as a "rule of judicial administration"). Those of our sister circuits to have considered the issue have held that a plaintiff in a lawsuit governed by the PLRA is not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of exhaustion. See Messa v. Goord, 652 F.3d 305, 308-09 (2d Cir. 2011); Dillon, 596 F.3d at 272; Pavey, 544 F.3d at 742; Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1373-77 (11th Cir. 2008); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). No court has held, as Small would have us hold, that decision of that issue implicates Seventh Amendment rights.[4]
As we have already suggested, it is of no consequence that here, as is often the case, there are disputed facts that must be resolved in order to determine whether the claims were exhausted. See Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1373–74 (holding the district court properly acted as fact finder in resolving conflicting evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact about whether administrative remedies were available to the prisoner plaintiffs); accord Messa, 652 F.3d at 309; Dillon, 596 F.3d at 271. Matters of judicial administration often require judges to decide factual disputes and the Seventh Amendment is not implicated as long as the facts are not bound up with the merits of the underlying dispute. See Messa, 652 F.3d at 310 ("The Seventh Amendment does not promise a jury trial on all issues that might, as a practical matter, finally dispose of a case. Rather, it guarantees the right to a jury's resolution of the merits of the ultimate dispute." (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370, 377 (1996) and In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 309–10 (1920))); see also Alliance for Envtl. Renewal v. Pyramid Crossgates Co., 436 F.3d 82, 87–88 (2d Cir. 2006). Small does not suggest that the facts relating to his exhaustion of administrative remedies or his failure to exhaust are at all intertwined with the merits of his claims.
In sum, we agree with the Second, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits and hold that judges may resolve factual disputes relevant to the exhaustion issue without the participation of a jury. Accordingly, the District Court did not err by acting as the fact finder because exhaustion constitutes a preliminary issue for which no right to a jury trial exists.[5]
Having determined that the District Court did not err by serving as fact finder on the exhaustion issue, we turn our attention to the Court's findings themselves, findings we must accept unless clearly erroneous. The Court correctly placed the burden on Defendants to prove non-exhaustion and conducted a two-day, painstakingly thorough inquiry into the exhaustion issue as to each of Small's claims. (J.A. 83-437). The Court then carefully, and in much detail, reviewed the testimony and documentary evidence, made credibility determinations to which we must defer, and rendered its decision.
Although the availability of administrative remedies to a prisoner is a question of law, Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Ray, 285 F.3d at 291), it necessarily involves a factual inquiry. See Dillon, 596 F.3d at 266 ("[W]hile it is a question of law whether administrative remedies qualify as being 'available' under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), availability may sometimes turn on questions of fact."). "'Available' means 'capable of use; at hand.'" Brown, 312 F.3d at 113 (citing Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary 141 (1994 ed.)). Remedies that are not reasonably communicated to inmates may be considered unavailable for exhaustion purposes. Id.; see Dillon, 596 F.3d at 268 (recognizing "the importance of ensuring that inmates have avenues for discovering the procedural rules governing their grievances"); Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir. 2007) ("That which is unknown and unknowable is unavailable . . . .")).
The District Court found that Small received an inmate handbook (which, as we have noted, outlines CCCF's grievance procedures) upon his entry to the prison, or shortly thereafter, [6] and, in any event, that he was aware of those procedures. We agree that, wholly aside from whether Small in fact was given a handbook, there was ample evidence that he nonetheless knew of, and had access to, CCCF's grievance procedures and, thus, that administrative remedies were "available" to him.
"[T]o properly exhaust administrative remedies prisoners must 'complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, ' rules that are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself." Jones, 549 U.S. at 218 (citation omitted) (quoting Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88). To "complete the administrative review process, " we have held, means "substantial" compliance with the prison's grievance procedures. See Spruill, 372 F.3d at 231 (citing Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 77-78 (3d Cir. 2000)). The District Court found, in its review of the grievances at issue before us, that Small had not substantially complied with CCCF's grievance procedures as to any of them, for different reasons specific to each one, and had thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.[7]
It has been with some difficulty that we have parsed out the who, what, where, and when regarding each of the grievances at issue, and we applaud the District Court for its yeoman efforts in this regard. Indeed, we agree with the Court as to the failings of the vast majority of the grievances and, without being as specific as the Court, we briefly explain why. Submitting a Sick Call Request, for example, a form on which a prisoner requests medical attention, is not a submission in compliance with CCCF's grievance procedures. As the District Court explained, "Sick Call Requests are prospective requests for medical services, they are not retrospective complaints about the denial of services." (J.A. 442). Moreover, any asserted belief that a medical-related grievance was to be filed by means of a Sick Call Request form is belied by Small's submission of grievance forms complaining about deficient medical care. Beyond even that, Small testified to the difference between a Sick Call Request, "a small little form that you fill out with your information on it to request medical attention, " ( Id. at 155), and a grievance form, "a much larger form that you fill out if you have a complaint against something in the institution.” (Id. at 156).
We believe, however, that the District Court erred insofar as it found that although grievances had been submitted in compliance with CCCF's procedures as to the incidents of June 18, 2005 and June 28, 2005, those grievances should nonetheless be dismissed because Small did not file an appeal as to either one.[8] The Court concluded that Small's failure to appeal rendered his efforts noncompliant with CCCF's procedures and, therefore, that his administrative remedies as to them were unexhausted. There is no dispute, however, that there was no decision as to either of those grievances (or, we note, any of the others now before us), and we disagree with the Court that substantial compliance with CCCF's procedures requires appealing non-decisions. CCCF's procedures discuss only the appeal of a decision with which the inmate is not satisfied, and do not mention what must or even could be done by the inmate when a decision is never made: "If the inmate is not satisfied with the grievance officer's decision, He/She may appeal to the Warden . . . ." (J.A. 675). Thus, the Court erroneously read an additional requirement into CCCF's grievance procedures.[9]
Because CCCF procedures did not contemplate an appeal from a non-decision, when Small failed to receive even a response to the grievances addressing the June 18 and June 28, 2005 incidents, much less a decision as to those grievances, the appeals process was unavailable to him. See Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (agreeing with the Eighth and Fifth Circuits that "administrative remedies [are] exhausted when prison officials fail to respond to inmate grievances because those remedies ha[ve] become 'unavailable'"); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) ("[T]he failure to respond to a grievance within the time limits contained in the grievance policy renders an administrative remedy unavailable"); see also Boyd v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 2004) ("[A]dministrative remedies are exhausted when prison officials fail to timely respond to a properly filed grievance"); Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999) ("A prisoner's administrative remedies are deemed exhausted when a valid grievance has been filed and the state's time for responding thereto has expired."); cf. Brown, 312 F.3d at 111 ("The PLRA does not require exhaustion of all remedies. Rather, it requires exhaustion of such administrative remedies as are available." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we will vacate the order of the District Court dismissing those grievances and remand for further proceedings as to them.[10]
INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE[1]
No staff member may retaliate against an inmate for filing or withdrawing a grievance. A grievance may be initiated for any one the following reasons: • An alleged violation of civil, constitutional or statutory right or policy