Opinion ID: 3031007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Exhaust and the Procedural Default

Text: Doctrine Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court noted the “difficult” questions that would be presented by imposing an exhaustion requirement on § 1983 suits, including what preclusive effect state administrative determinations would have on subsequent federal suits. Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 513-14 (1982). In our case, defendants assert that Ngo failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies because the Appeals Coordinator held Ngo’s claim to be procedurally barred for untimeliness. Procedural default, however, is not necessarily synonymous with a failure to exhaust. Cf. Franklin, 290 F.3d at 1230 (clarifying that the doctrines of exhaustion and procedural default “developed independently and on different grounds, apply in different situations, and lead to different consequences”). [2] To demonstrate a failure to exhaust, defendants must specify which remedies remain available to Ngo following the Appeals Coordinator’s decision. Cf. id. at 1230-31. The defendants offer no guidance on how Ngo can cure his supposed failure to exhaust or what remedies, if any, remain available to Ngo. Instead, the defendants’ argument rests on procedural default and not exhaustion. We must therefore determine whether a failure to timely exhaust a prison’s administrative remedies under the PLRA procedurally bars a subsequent suit in district court. To answer this question, we must first decide if the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is analogous to either administrative or habeas exhaustion. This will help us determine whether an 3600 NGO v. WOODFORD untimely prisoner grievance nonetheless satisfies the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement or if the untimely grievance will be barred under the procedural default doctrine. We are not the first circuit to address this issue. Four other circuits have ruled on whether an untimely administrative appeal satisfies the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. The Sixth Circuit held that it does; the Third, Seventh, and Tenth held that it does not.
Appeal Satisfies the PLRA’s Exhaustion Requirement In Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit held that a prisoner exhausts all available administrative remedies when he finishes “one complete round of the prison [grievance] process,” regardless whether he filed a timely appeal. Id. at 733. The court explained that the PLRA’s exhaustion provision is “a benefit accorded to state prisons, an opportunity to satisfy those inmate grievances the state wishes to handle internally.” Id. at 726 (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 492 (1973)). According to the Sixth Circuit, when filing a late claim, a prisoner fulfills the letter and spirit of the PLRA by providing the state an opportunity to review the claim. See id. If the state refuses to consider the claim, then this decision should not “handcuff the federal courts in adjudicating cases involving important federal rights.” Id.
Untimely Administrative Appeal Does Not Satisfy the PLRA’s Exhaustion Requirement Confronted with similar situations, the Seventh and Tenth Circuits interpreted the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement as requiring a timely grievance by a prisoner at the administraNGO v. WOODFORD 3601 tive level before the prisoner initiates a federal cause of action. See Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004); Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 949 (2002). Both circuits feared that prisoners would purposely avoid administrative deadlines, thereby undermining the PLRA’s objective of offering prisons the first opportunity to resolve a prisoner’s complaint. See Ross, 365 F.3d at 1186; Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1023-24. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit concluded that without some doctrine akin to procedural default, prisoners could “ ‘exhaust’ state remedies by spurning them.” Id. Thus, in the Seventh Circuit, “procedural default also means failure to exhaust one’s remedies.” Id. at 1024. But see Franklin, 290 F.3d at 1230 (distinguishing the two concepts). An inmate’s failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the merits of his grievance, bars the inmate from bringing a subsequent federal suit. See Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1024 (“Failure to do what the state requires bars, and does not just postpone, suit under § 1983.”). To hold otherwise, according to the Seventh Circuit, would leave the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement “without any oomph.” Id. at 1025. The Third Circuit likewise concluded that the PLRA contains a procedural bar rule, emphasizing that its policy goals would be best served by requiring prisoners to file timely grievances with prisons before launching a § 1983 action. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 230 (3d Cir. 2004) (“We believe that Congress’s policy objectives will be served by interpreting § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement to include a procedural default component.”). But the Spruill court had some qualms about its holding. It found “neither position entirely satisfactory,” and acknowledged that “an exhaustion rule can (though need not) be fairly read to include a procedural default component.” Id. at 229-30. As explained below, the Third, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits’ arguments do not convince us, primarily because we 3602 NGO v. WOODFORD think their heavy reliance on the need for a procedural bar similar to that found in the habeas context is misplaced.
Analogous to Habeas Exhaustion [3] “[A]s a matter of comity, federal courts should not consider a claim in a habeas corpus petition until after the state courts have had an opportunity to act.” Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982); see also Powell v. Lambert, 357 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[I]f a state procedural bar is an adequate and independent ground for dismissal, habeas corpus is foreclosed in federal court . . . .”). That is why a state prisoner must first exhaust the remedies available at the state level before petitioning for federal habeas corpus relief. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1991) (holding that the independent and adequate state ground doctrine bars federal habeas if the prisoner failed to meet a state procedural requirement). Specifically, “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that . . . the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Even though the habeas exhaustion requirement under § 2254 does not specifically mention procedural default, the Supreme Court has grafted procedural default onto § 2254’s exhaustion requirement. As a result, a prisoner may be procedurally barred from bringing a habeas petition in federal court even though he has technically exhausted his claims with an untimely habeas petition filed in state court. In habeas corpus cases, the merger of exhaustion with procedural default protects federal-state comity by providing state courts with the first opportunity to correct their errors. This upholds the dignity of state judgments by preventing inmates from “undermin[ing] the State’s interest in enforcing NGO v. WOODFORD 3603 its laws” through an “end run” by strategically defaulting in state court to avoid the habeas exhaustion requirement. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 730-31. Essentially, the state criminal process should be the “main event” rather than a “tryout on the road” to a dispositive federal habeas hearing. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). [4] A state’s sovereignty, however, is less threatened when a federal court reviews “a non-criminal state administrative process” for violations of constitutional rights compared to when a federal court reviews a collateral attack on a sovereign state court’s judgment. See Thomas, 337 F.3d at 727 n.2. Section 1983 suits by prisoners do not collaterally attack a prison grievance proceeding and do not require a collateral review. [5] Even though the PLRA uses language similar to that of § 2254, nothing in the PLRA mentions procedural default or indicates an intent to bar suits by prisoners who fail to meet administrative time requirements mandated by prisons. In fact, the language of § 1997e(a) strongly suggests that an exhaustion requirement defers, not bars, a federal suit: inmates may not sue “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (emphasis added). This is in contrast to the language used for habeas exhaustion requirement: the writ may not issue “unless . . . the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) (emphasis added). [6] Moreover, the PLRA has no language instructing courts how to treat administrative findings. In this case, for instance, the Appeals Coordinator determined that Ngo’s appeal was untimely, resolving a very difficult legal issue that depends on whether the restrictions should be treated as a continuing injury or a one-time harm at the time they were imposed. Unlike § 2254, which explicitly provides a standard of review for collateral re-examination of state court rulings on issues of fact and law, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), nothing in the PLRA 3604 NGO v. WOODFORD directs federal courts to defer to such a legal conclusion, or to any factual findings made by prison administrators. Prison grievance proceedings are not sufficiently judicial in nature to warrant preclusive effect at all. Cf. Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 203-04 (1985) (holding that members of a prison disciplinary committee were not entitled to the absolute immunity accorded judges because they were not “profes- sional hearing officers, as are administrative law judges,” and that disciplinary hearings were not required to observe judicial norms). Prison grievance administrators are not judges trained to handle the intricacies of the legal issues in cases they hear; they do not enforce constitutional rights and cannot award damages to inmates. Furthermore, the standards governing suits in state or federal courts are not necessarily adhered to during prison grievance proceedings. Simply put, a prison’s administrative grievance proceeding can in no way be the “main event” in a prisoner’s attempt to have a constitutional violation redressed. The defendants urge that barring Ngo’s § 1983 action will best serve the policy objectives of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement by “afford[ing] corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally,” and to take “corrective action . . . [that] might improve prison administration and satisfy the inmate.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). Furthermore, the defendants worry that, by the time an inmate files an appeal, the inmate’s injury may “no longer be amenable to intervention or rectification by the prison.” Appellees’ Supplemental Answering Brief at 7. In addition, the defendants express concern that a ruling in favor of Ngo would encourage prisoners to file a late claim in order to skip the administrative process and head straight to federal court. But the defendants fail to recognize that internal administrative appeals offer prisoners the fastest route to a remedy. See Thomas, 337 F.3d at 732 (“[P]otential litigants will still have every incentive to raise their grievance within the prisNGO v. WOODFORD 3605 on’s timelines, because it is in the prison grievance process that inmates will, for most practical purposes, receive their swiftest and most effective remedies.”). We have no reason to believe that prisoners will not avail themselves of “the most efficient mechanism to remedy a violation of federal law.” Id. at 726. Prisoners have every incentive to seek administrative review before suing in federal court. After all, the administrative process provides prisoners with an additional attempt to win a favorable ruling. See Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 764 (1979) (finding “[n]o reason” why one would “forgo an available state remedy” where, as here, “[p]rior resort to the state remedy would not impair the availability of the federal remedy”). These are all strong reasons why prisoners will not bypass the administrative process by purposely not filing a timely grievance. Here, for example, we are not dealing with a case where the prisoner deliberately bypassed the administrative process, or even a case of protracted delay. Ngo gave the prison grievance process a chance to work; indeed, it’s debatable whether his appeal was even untimely. Even assuming that an inmate wished to skip a prison’s grievance system in order to quickly get into district court, the inmate must still submit his untimely grievance to the prison and appeal all denials of his claims completely through the prison’s administrative process to satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. Holding that the PLRA does not contain a procedural default bar thus would in no way obstruct the goal of allowing prison officials first crack at resolving prisoners’ grievances. It is for the prison to decide whether to exercise its discretion and accept or refuse the opportunity to hear the case on the merits regardless whether the grievance is timely filed. In this case, the Appeals Coordinator could have considered Ngo’s appeal; she was authorized to do so by the grievance regulations, but elected not to.
Like Administrative Exhaustion The exhaustion doctrine has also been used in administrative law. Exhaustion in the administrative context protects an 3606 NGO v. WOODFORD administrative agency’s authority. See McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 145. In addition, administrative exhaustion “promotes judicial efficiency” by allowing the agency the opportunity to correct its own errors and to create a record which might facilitate judicial review. Id. [7] In cases involving other federal statutes, the Supreme Court has stated that administrative exhaustion does not include a procedural default component. For example, in EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U.S. 107 (1988), the Supreme Court held that a Title VII complainant’s untimely grievance was irrelevant in determining whether she could proceed to federal court. See id. at 123. Similarly, in Oscar Mayer & Co., the Court held that state procedural defaults in claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act “cannot foreclose federal relief.” 441 U.S. at 762; see also id. at 759 (“[T]here is no [statutory] requirement that, in order to commence state proceedings and thereby preserve federal rights, the grievant must file with the State within whatever time limits are specified by state law.”). Thus, a procedural default has not been implanted into either the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s or Title VII’s exhaustion requirements. Both cases give us pause about imposing a sanction that bars claims which failed to comply with administrative timing deadlines, in the absence of any statutory direction to do so. Cf. Franklin, 290 F.3d at 1231 (explaining that the “long-established differences between the exhaustion requirement and the procedural default doctrine preclude any conclusion that Congress implicitly intended to reach” one by a statutory reference to the other); Patsy, 457 U.S. at 514 (reasoning that the “difficult questions concerning the design and scope of an exhaustion requirement . . . might be answered swiftly and surely by legislation”). Moreover, such a scheme would penalize the less sophisticated and less informed who are unable to satisfy complex NGO v. WOODFORD 3607 and demanding procedural requirements, regardless of the merits of their claims. Cf. McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 153 (“As a practical matter, the filing deadlines . . . may pose little difficulty for the knowledgeable inmate accustomed to grievances and court actions. But they are a likely trap for the inexperienced and unwary inmate, ordinarily indigent and unrepresented by counsel, with a substantial claim.”). Congress intended § 1997e(a) “to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits.” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524. Merging procedural default with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, though, would potentially reduce the quantity of meritorious suits and would not necessarily improve the quality of the surviving suits. In addition, neither the interests of federalism nor comity are served by imposing a procedural default component on the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. We recognize that procedural bars will certainly filter out some suits brought by prisoners. But neither can we be blind to “the serious impact on prisoners with legitimate claims who are unrepresented, unschooled in litigation, and often illequipped to negotiate an administrative system far harsher in its procedural requirements than state or federal courts.”4 Kermit Roosevelt III, Exhaustion Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act: The Consequence of Procedural Error, 52 Emory L.J. 1771, 1813 (2003). [8] In sum, the PLRA exhaustion requirement tends to resemble administrative exhaustion. Thus, the reasons for utilizing procedural default doctrine in the habeas context are generally irrelevant to prisoner suits under the PLRA. There 4 For instance, the current limitations period for § 1983 actions in California is two years. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004). If the plaintiff is a California inmate the statute of limitations would effectively shrink to fifteen working days under the procedural bar rule adopted in cases like Pozo. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.3(c)(6), 3084.5(a)(1), 3084.6(c). The purpose of the PLRA was to reduce the number of meritless lawsuits, not simply to make things harder for inmates, irrespective of the merits of their claims. 3608 NGO v. WOODFORD is no need for us to convert a rule governing the timing of lawsuits into one that bars them entirely.