Opinion ID: 204350
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Availability of the Process at LCDC

Text: Second, Napier argues that the grievance procedure at LCDC was no longer available to him after he was imprisoned in a different, private facility. However, he presented no evidence to the district court to support this contention. Generally, [t]he transfer of a prisoner from one facility to another does not render the grievance procedures at the transferor facility `unavailable' for purposes of exhaustion. Blakey v. Beckstrom, No. 06-163-HRW, 2007 WL 204005, at  (E.D.Ky. Jan. 24, 2007); [3] see also Jackson v. Walker, No. 6:07-230-DCR, 2007 WL 2344938, at -6 (E.D.Ky. Aug. 14, 2007) (finding a policy which simply stated it applied to all inmates, without contemplating inter-facility grievances, was available). Inherent in Napier's argument is the idea that where the facility has not expressly provided for inter-facility grievances, the remedy is categorically unavailable. We reject this proposition and hold that a jail's grievance policies need not explicitly provide for all possible scenarios in which a prisoner may seek to file a grievance. Instead, when a reasonable policy is in place, but is silent or vague in a particular circumstance, courts must look to see whether the prisoner has attempted to satisfy the requirements of the policy. If Napier had attempted to follow the letter of the grievance policy, and was unsuccessful, this would be a closer question. Indeed, if he had written his grievance, simply addressed it to the LCDC jailer or his designee (per the policy), and handed it to a guard in his current facility ( and this had not worked to reach LCDC), he could have argued that he followed the given procedure but that it was no longer meaningfully available to him. He also could have mailed his grievance to see if it was accepted. But he did nothing. The Sixth Circuit requires some affirmative efforts to comply with the administrative procedures before analyzing whether the facility rendered these remedies unavailable. Braswell v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 08-0691, 2009 WL 2447614, at  (M.D.Tenn. Aug. 10, 2009) (citing Brock v. Kenton Cnty., 93 Fed.Appx. 793, 798 (6th Cir.2004)). Our Court has consistently analyzed whether an inmate's efforts to exhaust were sufficient under the circumstances, but in each case, the prisoner did something. See Bruce v. Corr. Med. Serv., Inc., 389 Fed. Appx. 462, 467 (6th Cir.2010) (noting that prisoner attempted to file a grievance and was told Policy 501.01 would not allow it); Flournoy v. Schomig, 152 Fed.Appx. 535, 537 (7th Cir.2005) (recognizing that plaintiff had submitted an emergency grievance before being transferred, then filed another after transfer); Rancher v. Franklin Cnty., 122 Fed.Appx. 240, 242 (6th Cir.2005) (excusing the exhaustion requirement because the prisoner had filed a grievance with the jail, contacted prison personnel, and submitted documents from other prisoners stating that the jail had refused to accept medical grievances). The dissent insists that there is no duty for prisoners to attempt to exhaust when availability is even in question, but only when processes were available and the issue is futility. Infra at 227-28. This suggested dichotomy is false; whether a process is available for purposes of the PLRA often turns on whether a grievance procedure is availableon its facebut is actually futile, despite its language. See Santiago v. Meinsen, 89 F.Supp.2d 435, 440-41 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (addressing the excuse that a prisoner was transferred to a different facility as a futility argument, and concluding, Should the plaintiff, however, be rewarded for failing to participate in the grievance procedure by being permitted to bring a federal action without even attempting to resolve his claim administratively? The answer is a decided no.). Prisoners often argue futility precisely because a policy does exist, but they feel it was not actually available to them. See Brock, 93 Fed.Appx. at 798 ([The PLRA] says nothing about a prisoner's subjective beliefs, logical or otherwise, about the administrative remedies that might be available to him. The statute's requirements are clear: If administrative remedies are available, the prisoner must exhaust them. (Internal quotations omitted)). The dissent summarily concludes that no processes were available, but another prisoner's experiences demonstrate that they were. Faced with a policy that was not clearly unavailable, the only way to determine if the process was available, or futile, was to try. Here, a process existed, and therefore even according to the dissent, compliance with those rules . . . is required. Infra at 227; see Braswell, 2009 WL 2447614, at  (stating clearly that efforts must be made before an analysis of availability ). We are not requiring that a prisoner utilize every conceivable channel to grieve their case, but even when a policy is vague, a prisoner must do what is required by the grievance policy. [4] We have clearly held that an inmate does not exhaust available administrative remedies when the inmate entirely fails to invoke the prison's grievance procedure. Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720, 726 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 308-09 (6th Cir.1999)); Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Napier was provided the policy at issue, and had successfully filed other types of grievances in the past. Yet he did not file a grievance in this case, either when still housed at the LCDC or when he was later incarcerated at the Marion facility. Notably, when asked why he had not done so, Napier did not say, I did not have time, It would have been useless, I didn't know I had a claim, or I didn't think I could. He stated that he did not complain to anyone because he did not want to complain or bother the staff. (R.E. 113, Ex. A, Napier Dep. at 56.) The record seems to indicate that Napier simply chose not file a grievance, and proceeded to file a claim directly in federal court. That is precisely what the PLRA was designed to protect against.