Opinion ID: 2582842
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether exhaustion of remedies should have been excused for those claims Hymes was required to exhaust

Text: It is undisputed that Hymes did not exhaust his remedies for any of his claims. We therefore move on to the third element of the Eufemio exhaustion analysis: whether the failure to exhaust remedies was excused. In Bruns v. Municipality of Anchorage, [36] we noted that the failure to exhaust may be excused where the administrative remedy is inadequate [37] or where the administrative procedures are ineffective because of lack of meaningful access, bias, ... or the possibility that the claimant could face irreparable harm if the administrative process is followed. [38] The Hymeses argue that Donald's failure to exhaust remedies was excused because he lacked meaningful access to the grievance process. They allege that he was not given a copy of the prisoner handbook or any other source of the rules and regulations regarding grievances. Dr. DeRamus and Pomeroy respond that DOC notified Hymes about inmate rules, rights, and procedures and that the prisoner handbook was available for Hymes's use. The record reveals that Donald Hymes signed part of an Orientation Verification on May 7, 2003. But he refused to sign under the statement that he received a Prisoner Handbook because he said that he had not received the handbook. Rather, he signed under the statement that reads, I have been released from the Fairbanks Correctional Center for less than 90 days and verify that I understand the Prisoner Rules, Rights, and Procedures at this institution. Handbooks are available in each housing unit. Hymes signed his name under this statement even though he had just arrived at the prison. He had not been released from the prison as the statement indicates. Thus, the existence of Hymes's signature hardly proves what comes before it. There is no record evidence that he was given access to a handbook, which Timothy Lyden, Standards Administrator for the DOC, explained contains instructions regarding grievance procedures over any matter within the Department's control, including an alleged violation of the Department's regulations, a statute, or a procedure set out in the prisoner handbook, and health care issues. The Hymeses raised genuine issues of material fact in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment and their motion for reconsideration as to whether Hymes had meaningful access to the grievance procedure. In their opposition to the summary judgment motion, they asserted, Donald Louis Hymes was never given a copy of the rules and regulations regarding grievances. In their motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling, they asserted that Hymes asked if he could cross out `received Prisoner Handbook' because he had not received it but was told he could not alter the form in any way and had to sign it. They claimed that Hymes asked whether there was a handbook and was told yes, but [h]e did not receive one, nor did he ever see one. Because his signature on the Orientation Verification is under a clearly inaccurate statement indicating that he had been released from prison, the signature cannot be used to establish that he had any access to the handbook and grievance procedure. Indeed, the Hymeses' assertion in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment was that Hymes had not received the prisoner handbook. [39] [Exc. 50] Hymes's allegations create a factual dispute as to whether he lacked meaningful access to the prisoner handbook and the grievance procedures. The Hymeses also claim that Donald would have been retaliated against by being placed in administrative segregation or solitary confinement if he filed a grievance. [Exc. 29; At. Br. 9] Under our rule regarding grounds for an excuse from the exhaustion requirement, we have included the question of whether following the grievance procedure will threaten a claimant with irreparable harm. [40] We do not interpret this, as the superior court did, to require that Hymes show that he would in fact have suffered irreparable medical harm had Pomeroy retaliated against him. We conclude rather that if Pomeroy did threaten Hymes with the punitive disciplinary sanction of solitary confinement, this threat of retaliation excused him from following the grievance procedures if he reasonably feared he would be irreparably harmed. Hymes raised a material fact dispute regarding the threat of retaliation in his responses to Dr. DeRamus and Pomeroy's interrogatories, completed in December 2005. He stated: Dealing with Mr. Pomeroy was extremely stressful.... [A]t one point he told me that if I were to tell anyone that I was not getting adequate treatment from him, he would see to it that I was `put in the hole.' We note that there is a potential tension between Hymes's claim that he was unaware of the grievance procedures and his claim that he did not follow the procedures because he was afraid of retaliation. However, we believe that it is for the fact-finder to weigh Hymes's testimony regarding these two potential excuses with the other evidence to determine what actually took place. In sum, genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether Hymes was excused from the exhaustion requirement due to a lack of meaningful access to the administrative process or a threat of retaliation. Thus, it was error to grant summary judgment on the basis of Hymes's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [41]