Jones, Lorenzo v. Bock (warden), et al. / Williams, Timothy v. Overton, William, et al. (01/22/2007)

Questions presented: (1) Whether satisfaction of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement is a prerequisite to a prisoner's federal civil rights suit such that the prisoner must allege in his complaint how he exhausted his administrative remedies (or attach proof of exhaustion to the complaint), or alternatively, whether non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proven by the defense? (2) Whether the PLRA requires a prisoner to name a particular defendant in his or her administrative grievance in order to exhaust his or her administrative remedies as to that defendant and to preserve his or her right to sue them? (3) Whether the PLRA prescribes a "total exhaustion" rule that requires a federal district court to dismiss a prisoner's federal civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies whenever there is a single unexhausted claim, despite the presence of other exhausted aims?

BY EMILY HOWALD, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Approximately 42,000 inmates filed civil rights petitions in 1995; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, nearly 26,000 inmates filed similar petitions in the year 2000. Many say the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which attempted to limit the outbreak of prisoner litigation, is responsible for such a dramatic shift in the system.

The problem prisoners face now, however, is that some inmates with real grievances are kept out of the courts on a technicality. These small mistakes not only cost them a lawsuit, but many prisoners are left with physical pain and no remedy in sight.

Lorenzo Jones and Timothy Williams, both Michigan inmates, were unsatisfied with their prison conditions and unsatisfactory treatment provided by the Michigan Department of Corrections. Both men filed civil lawsuits in federal court, and both cases were dismissed due to "unexhausted" claims in the eyes of the court. Both men are fighting the dismissals.

Under the Act, an inmate is required to exhaust all administrative efforts regarding prison conditions before filing a suit in federal court. Federal judges must ensure that the inmates complete an internal complaint process sufficiently before allowing a civil rights case to proceed.

The Act specifically states that inmates must totally exhaust all remedies before a civil rights lawsuit can occur, and if a claim is "unexhausted," the case is dismissed. The Act is meant to limit the number of prisoner condition claims going to federal court.

Questions have arisen about the validity of the "total exhaustion" rule when there are separate claims within the case that do sufficiently meet the exhaustion requirements.

"Each of these questions are pretty important," said Jean-Claude Andre, the attorney representing Williams and Jones. "Twenty to 25,000 prison civil rights cases are filed in criminal court each year. This case is not going to decide whether the Michigan Department of Corrections should have removed Williams's tumors, or if Lorenzo Jones should have been asked to work. The case is going to resolve the procedural questions that face many, nearly all, of these 20, 000 to 25,000 prison civil rights cases."

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the suits finding that the prisoners did not follow proper complaint procedures.

Interpretation and application of the "total exhaustion" rule varies among the federal circuit courts.

The 6th and 10th circuits have published opinions embracing a firm total exhaustion rule, while most other circuit courts have leaned toward the 2nd and 9th circuits, which have rejected the total exhaustion rule. As a result, these circuits have allowed inmates to proceed with the aspects of their case that were completely exhausted.

"Whether or not a case will be heard before the court shouldn't depend on where the prisoner is incarcerated," Andre said. He added that upholding the total exhaustion rule is "particularly ridiculous."

Jones has been battling with the Michigan Department of Corrections since November 2000, when he sustained serious injuries from a car accident while he was in their custody. He broke his arm and sustained serious back injuries. Jones alleged that after the accident, prison officials required him to complete arduous tasks, which aggravated these injuries.

Jones argued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that the prison officials' deliberate indifference to his medical needs violated the 8th Amendment. The court dismissed the complaint based on Jones's failure to exhaust all of his remedies. He did not attach to his complaint copies of his grievance, appeal forms and the prison's response papers. He also did not describe how he had effectively exhausted his administrative remedies. Jones appealed.

In the case of Williams, his mistake was not properly filing the names of the individuals he planned to sue.

Williams has a condition is his right arm known as "noninvoluting cavernous hemangiomas," which causes the growth of tumors in his arm.

In March 2001, Williams requested surgery to remove a tumor to relieve the pain it was causing. Dr. Raymond C. Noellert authorized the treatment in March 2002, saying Williams "simply cannot stand the hand the way it is."

The Correctional Medical Services denied authorization of the surgery because "functional return of the hand is not a known result. Surgery would be cosmetic and dangerous."

Williams disagreed. He said the surgery was to relieve pain associated with his condition, and he appealed the decision. He also requested placement in a "handicapped accessible single cell." Both requests were denied.

Williams took his case to court. He alleged that William Overton, Warden David Jamrog, and other prison employees violated his rights under 8th and 14th Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan concluded that Williams failed to name all of the respondents during the administrative appeals process. This error indicated that Williams did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the Act, and the matter was dismissed without prejudice. Williams appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 15, 2005, the 6th Circuit affirmed the ruling against Jones. Circuit Judges Alice Batchelder and Guy Cole, along with District Judge Danny Reeves, sitting by designation, wrote together: "This Circuit follows the ‘total exhaustion' rule, meaning that we must dismiss a complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies whenever there is a single unexhausted claim, despite the presence of other exhausted claims."

One week later, on June 22, 2005, the 6th Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling that Williams did not name the individuals he intended to sue, and therefore, did not exhaust all administrative efforts and medical claims.

Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote: "Recently…this court ‘definitively answered' the question of whether a prisoner's complaint containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed under the PLRA. Williams has failed to satisfy the requirement…and thus, the district court's judgment must be affirmed."

Supporters of the fair treatment of prisoners disagree. "The Sixth Circuit's rules governing PLRA exhaustion unduly disadvantage prisoners," stated a brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by five organizations that focus on protecting the rights of individuals incarcerated in American prisons. "Given that the Sixth Circuit applies these rules by dismissing claims…they can be insurmountable obstacles to litigation of even the most meritorious claim." A friend of the court brief was filed by these organizations on behalf of both Jones and Williams.

Michigan Solicitor General Thomas Casey said this statute is important for all corrections facilities around the country. "There was a conflict of opinions," he added. "There should be uniformity about how the exhaustion rule is applied."

"The hurdles imposed in the 6th Circuit are hurdles that are not imposed in other Circuits," said Eric Maier, an attorney who filed a brief on behalf of organizations that support Jones and Williams. "When you see that split, it leads to the Supreme Court review."

The Court recognized the split and on March 6, 2006, agreed to hear both cases, and consolidated them with a third Michigan case. John Walton, the other Michigan inmate, sued Barbara Bouchard for racial discrimination, but his case was also dismissed due to improperly following procedures.

Advocates of prisoners' rights are hopeful that the Court will settle the issue once and for all. A reply brief for Jones stated: "In the four months since this petition was filed on October 13, 2005, at least 42 district court decisions have passed on the [total exhaustion] question presented."

"These cases are exceedingly important," Andre said. "Prisoners around the country should know exactly what to do to get their civil rights cases heard before the court."

On Jan. 22, 2007, the Court sided unanimously with Jones and Williams, holding that the procedural rules adopted by lower courts, including the 6th Circuit designed to implement the PLRA's exhaustion requirement and to facilitate early judicial screening, are not required by the act, and crafting and imposing them exceeded proper judicial limits.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Court's opinion.