United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
J.H. PLAINTIFF
v.
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORP., et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
CARLTON W. REEVES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
J.H. is
incarcerated at East Mississippi Correctional Facility, a
prison managed and operated by Management & Training
Corporation. In August 2016, J.H. submitted a grievance to
MTC which stated that, among other things, “On 8-1-16,
I was raped by another inmate.” In October 2016, J.H.
brought a Section 1983 claim and a negligence claim for
damages against MTC for failing to prevent his
rape.[1] MTC has moved for summary judgment,
arguing that these claims have not been properly exhausted.
For the reasons below, MTC's motion is DENIED.
I.
Discussion
On this
motion, MTC bears the burden of demonstrating that J.H.
“failed to exhaust available administrative remedies,
” as exhaustion is an affirmative
defense.[2] MTC argues that both J.H.'s federal
law and state law claims were not properly exhausted pursuant
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. But the PLRA's
exhaustion requirement only applies to “[f]ederal
law” claims - not state law claims.[3] MTC has pointed
only to the PLRA as the reason for dismissing J.H.'s
negligence claim. As such, the Court will deny the
motion's request to dismiss that claim.[4]The PLRA's
exhaustion requirement does, however, apply to J.H's
Section 1983 claim. Under Johnson v. Johnson, J.H.
has satisfied that requirement if his Section 1983 claim has
a “basis” in the “problem[s]” MTC was
given “fair notice” of through his
grievance.[5] On this motion, MTC must show there is no
“genuine dispute” of any “material
fact” as to whether the problems raised in J.H.'s
grievance are the basis for his Section 1983
claim.[6]
A.
What Problems Was MTC Notified of by J.H.'s
Grievance?
J.H.'s
grievance reads as follows:
Date of Incident: 8-2-16. Time of Incident:
8:30 a.m. Place of Incident: Unit 3-C zone door.
Alleged Complaint: Conflict with staff. On 8-1-16, I
was raped by another inmate. I went to the door after shift
change and told Officer Ford (who works Unit 3) that I needed
to go to the clinic for a breathing treatment. I told her to
please call them. Then I told her that I had been raped. She
laughed at me and said did he rape you in your booty, like it
was a joke. I told her I was serious. She never called
medical. When they let me go to the library, I went to
medical and reported the rape to Nurse Edwards. Relief
Requested: Officer Ford should take things more serious
when it comes to offenders safety and well being. Whatever
punishment that seems proper for her actions.[7]
MTC
argues that J.H.'s grievance only notified them of a
single problem: that Officer Ford - not MTC itself -
“fail[ed] to take [J.H.] to the medical department
immediately after he reported the alleged
rape.”[8] It is true that this is the only problem
the grievance describes in great detail. And it is true that
this problem is not the basis for J.H.'s complaint, which
only alleges harms stemming from his rape, not MTC's
failure to properly respond to that rape. But it is also true
that the grievance includes the phrase, “On 8-1-16, I
was raped by another inmate.” The question is whether
this undetailed allegation gave MTC fair notice of a problem.
The
answer lies, in part, within MTC's rules regarding
grievance procedures.[9] Those rules do not state that a grievance
can only address one problem, or only the problem at the
heart of the grievance. Nor did those rules state that a
grievance must frame problems using the “specific legal
theory” relied on in a future lawsuit.[10] Instead,
MTC's rules simply state that a grievance must be as
detailed “as possible” when describing a
problem.[11]
Under
Johnson, the proper amount of detail is that which
“gives officials a fair opportunity to address the
problem.”[12] The requisite level of detail, then,
“depend[s] on the type of problem” at
issue.[13] To allow officials to address a problem
regarding a specific inmate or officer, a grievance must
include “details regarding who was involved and when
the incident occurred.”[14] But when a problem regards
conditions created by prison policy, officials can address it
“whether or not the grievance names
anyone.”[15] For example, a grievance can merely
state that “prices in the commissary are too
high” in order for officials to address the relevant
policy problem.[16] In short, Johnson says that a
relatively undetailed statement in a grievance can give fair
notice of a problem with a prison condition or policy.
Here,
it is unclear if the phrase “On 8-1-16, I was raped by
another inmate” suggests a problem with a prison
condition or policy, rather than a problem with an
individual. On one interpretation of that phrase, J.H. was
suggesting a problem with the particular inmate who allegedly
raped him. On this view, J.H. failed to give MTC a fair
opportunity to address the problem because his grievance did
not name his rapist. Under another interpretation of that
phrase, however, J.H was suggesting a problem with prison
condition or policy - namely, the inadequacy of procedures
aimed at preventing the rape of inmates.
The
record indicates that MTC adopted this latter interpretation.
In an August 2016 memo, MTC told J.H. that it was
investigating his grievance to see if it stated a violation
of the rules created by the Mississippi Department of
Corrections pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination
Act.[17] Those rules, according to MDOC, are
aimed at “preventing, detecting and responding to
sexual abuse and sexual misconducts in the correctional
setting.”[18] In a December 2016 memo, MTC told J.H.
that the resulting investigation found his grievance's
allegations “[u]nsubstantiated.”[19] That memo
framed the alleged PREA rule violation as one claiming
“that [J.H. was] sexually assaulted by [his]
roommate” - not that Officer Ford had failed
to properly respond to that rape.
These
statements do not definitively prove that MTC interpreted
J.H.'s grievance as presenting a problem with MTC ability
to prevent inmate rape. But those statements do establish
that the “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
[decide the issue] for the nonmoving party, ”
J.H.[20] The record therefore creates a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether J.H.'s grievance
notified MTC that its policies did not protect inmates from
rape.
B.
Was The Relevant Problem The Basis For This ...