Opinion ID: 164588
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of a Favorable Outcome

Text: 20 Having determined that Ross properly invoked the first step of MCDC's grievance process with respect to his dangerous conditions claims, we turn to whether he was obligated to resort to step two of that process, filing a formal grievance. We hold that he was not required to do so because he was successful in the first stage of the grievance process, and nothing in the record suggests that there was any further relief whatsoever available through MCDC procedures. 21 In Booth v. Churner, the Supreme Court held that the PLRA requires a prisoner seeking only money damages to complete administrative processes that offer some sort of relief, albeit not the damages relief the prisoner wants. 532 U.S. 731, 734, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). However, prisoners need not engage in entirely fruitless exercises when no form of relief is available at all. Without the possibility of some relief, the administrative officers would presumably have no authority to act on the subject of the complaint, leaving the inmate with nothing to exhaust. Id. at 736 n. 4, 121 S.Ct. 1819. In other words, the modifier available in the PLRA means that inmates must exhaust administrative remedies so long as there is the possibility of at least some kind of relief. Id. at 738, 121 S.Ct. 1819; cf. Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51, 58 (2d Cir.2003) ([T]here is no requirement [under the Immigration and Naturalization Act] to exhaust remedies where the relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action whatsoever in response to a complaint.) (citations omitted). 22 Once a prisoner has won all the relief that is available under the institution's administrative procedures, his administrative remedies are exhausted. Prisoners are not required to file additional complaints or appeal favorable decisions in such cases. When there is no possibility of any further relief, the prisoner's duty to exhaust available administrative remedies is complete. See McGrath v. Johnson, 67 F.Supp.2d 499, 510 (E.D.Penn.1999) (exhaustion complete when a grievance was resolved in the prisoner's favor and there was no basis for him to appeal); Clement v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 220 F.Supp.2d 1098, 1106 (N.D.Cal.2002) (plaintiff was not required to exhaust further administrative appeals when he had received all the relief that the prison administrative appeal system could provide); Brady v. Attygala, 196 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1021 (C.D.Cal.2002) (It would be a strange rule that an inmate who has received all he expects or reasonably can expect must nevertheless continue to appeal, even when there is nothing to appeal.) (quotation omitted); Gomez v. Winslow, 177 F.Supp.2d 977, 985 (N.D.Cal.2001) (Because [the plaintiff] had, in essence, `won' his inmate appeal, it would be unreasonable to expect him to appeal that victory before he is allowed to file suit.). 23 Pursuant to CSC procedures, Ross began the grievance process by submitting a Pre-Grievance Resolution Form complaining that the MCDC shower was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a shower mat. The prison responded by furnishing the shower with a mat, thus fully alleviating the problem Ross raised. It appears that CSC was unable to do anything more in response to Ross' complaint. In particular, nothing in the record indicates that money damages or any other retrospective relief was available through the prison's grievance process. Having received all the relief the grievance process could offer, Ross was required to do no more in order to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his dangerous conditions of confinement claims.