Opinion ID: 787967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Which theories?

Text: 25 Johnson's suit contains Eighth Amendment claims, race-based Equal Protection claims, and claims for failure to protect because of sexual orientation under the Equal Protection Clause. We begin with the question of which of those three categories of claims were exhausted. 26 As a general matter, there is authority from several courts to the effect that a prisoner, who is of course typically uncounselled, need not present legal theories in his grievances. See, e.g., Burton, 321 F.3d at 575 ([W]e would not require a prisoner's grievance to allege a specific legal theory or facts that correspond to all the required elements of a particular legal theory.); see also Strong, 297 F.3d at 650 (concluding that a prisoner need not present legal theories, at least as long as prison rules do not require that). We agree. As we discussed above, the purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to give prison administrators an opportunity to address a problem, and they can do this whether or not the prisoner tells them the constitutional provisions that the problem implicates. Further, TDCJ rules specifically instruct inmates to provide facts, not legal terminology. 27 Johnson's grievances repeatedly refer to the defendants' failure to protect him from assaults and (though this was unnecessary) specifically name the Eighth Amendment. The defendants admit that the grievances exhausted Eighth Amendment claims, at least against a few defendants regarding a few instances — matters that we will discuss later. They also argue, however, that the grievances do not exhaust any of Johnson's two types of Equal Protection claims against any defendant. 28 Race. As to race discrimination, the defendants correctly observe that Johnson's grievances nowhere state that he was suffering racial discrimination. Indeed, his grievances do not mention his race at all. Even though Johnson need not present a full-fledged legal theory in his grievance, his grievances must alert prison officials to a problem and give them an opportunity to address it. His grievances gave them notice that there was a problem with protection from sexual assaults, but we do not think that they can be read to give notice that there was a race-related problem. See Medera v. Griffin, No. 02 C 1064, 2003 WL 132496, at  (N.D.Ill. Jan. 14, 2003) (holding that grievances regarding prison conditions that allegedly violated the Eighth Amendment did not exhaust an Equal Protection claim where the grievances contained no mention whatsoever of the plaintiff's heritage, nor any references to racial slurs). 9 29 Sexual orientation. Johnson's grievances mention his sexual orientation many times. For the most part, the references to Johnson's sexuality are intertwined with Johnson's complaints about the officials' failure to protect him from assaults. The defendants contend that this does not necessarily indicate that Johnson was complaining that the officials were purposefully discriminating against him, by refusing to protect him, because of his homosexuality. The grievances are certainly not as explicit as one would expect from a lawyer, but as we stated above a prisoner need not provide all of the elements of a constitutional claim as long as the grievance at least reasonably indicates a problem. Further, Johnson's grievances do also suggest a complaint that the officials considered Johnson's sexuality: Johnson writes that members of the UCC responded to his requests for protection from rape by saying that they feel that because I'm a homosexual I'm enticing [illegible]. In addition, a reasonable reader could infer that the officials would not tell a heterosexual inmate that, instead of getting protection from victimization, he should choose someone to be with. Under the circumstances, we conclude that Johnson's grievances were sufficient to give prison officials fair notice that there might have been a sexual-orientation-related aspect to Johnson's problem. 30