ILNews

Administrative remedies must be exhausted

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Prisoners who file suits for damages before exhausting all administrative remedies are not entitled to a jury trial to debate factual issues relating to the exhaustion under the Seventh Amendment, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The opinion outlines the steps a U.S. District Court judge should take to determine whether a suit may go to trial.

The federal appellate court overturned the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division's ruling in the case Christopher Pavey v. Patrick Conley, et al., No. 07-1426. Pavey filed a suit under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act against guards he claimed broke his arm using excessive force to remove him from his cell.

The defendants argued Pavey failed to exhaust all his administrative remedies prior to filing the suit. Pavey countered he couldn't use those remedies because his left arm was broken and he is left-handed and unable to write, and that he was transferred to another prison before an investigation was conducted.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, actions can't be brought under federal law until all administrative remedies available are exhausted. Trying the merits before exhaustion is unsatisfactory because it would thwart Congress' effort to bar trials of prisoner cases before the prisoner has used all administrative remedies, wrote Judge Posner.

As a result, a jury may decide the merits of a case that never should have gotten to that stage because a judge should have found the prisoner had failed to use all available administrative remedies.

The 7th Circuit decision outlines a sequence to be followed in contested exhaustion cases: first, a U.S. District Court judge conducts a hearing on exhaustion and allows discovery only related to exhaustion; next, if the judge decides the prisoner didn't exhaust all remedies, then the plaintiff can attempt to exhaust the available remedies.

If the plaintiff exhausted all remedies, but the failure to exhaust was innocent, such as the plaintiff was presented by prison officials to proceed, he would be allowed to go back and exhaust. If the failure to exhaust is the prisoner's fault, then the case is over, Judge Posner wrote.

Finally, if a U.S. District Court judge determines the plaintiff has correctly exhausted all remedies, the case can proceed to pretrial discovery and possibly a trial on the merits. The jury wouldn't be bound by any findings made previously by the judge during the exhaustion proceedings.

"We emphasize that discovery with respect to the merits must not be begun until the issue of exhaustion is resolved. If merits discovery is allowed to begin before that resolution, the statutory goal of sparing federal courts the burden of prisoner litigation until and unless the prisoner has exhausted his administrative remedies will be thwarted," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT