Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that a prisoner subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision must qualify for the imminent-danger exception at the time of appeal, but is entitled to a presumption that a danger found by the district court continues. The court also held that the district court improperly granted judgment to the defendants on exhaustion because the evidence raised a genuine dispute regarding whether administrative remedies were available. The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a prisoner subject to the PLRA's three-strikes provision must demonstrate imminent danger at the time of filing a notice of appeal to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal when the district court previously found an imminent danger.
- What standard governs the imminent-danger inquiry on appeal and whether a prisoner previously found to allege imminent danger is entitled to a presumption that the danger continues.
- Whether the district court properly granted judgment to defendants for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
- Whether defendants carried their burden under the Albino burden-shifting framework to establish that available administrative remedies existed and were not exhausted.
Holdings
- A prisoner subject to the PLRA's three-strikes provision may be required to demonstrate that she is under an imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the notice of appeal is filed in order to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
- The Andrews standard applies to determine whether a prisoner has shown imminent danger on appeal; a prisoner may satisfy the exception by alleging an ongoing danger at the time of filing the notice of appeal, including a continuing prison practice or continuing effects of such a practice.
- A prisoner whom the district court found to have sufficiently alleged imminent danger is entitled to a presumption that the danger continues when the notice of appeal is filed; ordinarily, an affidavit or declaration alleging an ongoing danger will suffice.
- Williams sufficiently alleged an ongoing danger related to the conduct alleged in her complaint and could proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
- When a district court considers extraneous evidence in resolving a motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning exhaustion, the ruling may be treated as summary judgment; under Albino, summary judgment is the proper procedural vehicle for determining exhaustion.
- Defendants failed to establish that Williams did not exhaust available administrative remedies, and summary judgment on exhaustion was improper.
Key quotations
“We thus hold, consistent with Andrews, that a prisoner subject to the three-strikes provision may meet the imminent danger exception and proceed in forma pauperis on appeal if he alleges an ongoing danger at the time the notice of appeal is filed.” (775 F.3d at 1194)
“We also conclude that a prisoner who was found by the district court to sufficiently allege an imminent danger is entitled to a presumption that the danger continues at the time of the filing of the notice of appeal.” (775 F.3d at 1195)
“Because Defendants did not meet their burden of demonstrating that Williams had not exhausted available administrative remedies, we conclude that summary judgment was improper and we remand for further proceedings.” (775 F.3d at 1200)
Factual background
Williams, a California prisoner and transgender woman, alleged that prison officials Paramo, Olson, and Marrero spread rumors that she was a convicted sex offender and placed an "R" suffix on her prison record. She alleged that the resulting designation caused gang members to threaten her and that officials refused to accept her grievance and appeal concerning the danger. After her transfer to another facility, she alleged that the original defendants' disclosures continued to cause inmates to threaten her with serious physical harm.
Procedural history
Williams filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials caused her to be identified as a sex offender, thereby exposing her to threats and danger from other inmates. The district court granted her in forma pauperis status under the imminent-danger exception to the PLRA's three-strikes rule. It later granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, considered evidence outside the pleadings, and entered judgment for defendants. The district court denied reconsideration, and Williams appealed. The Ninth Circuit permitted her to proceed in forma pauperis, construed the district court's ruling as summary judgment, vacated it, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The district court's order granting judgment to defendants on exhaustion was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on whether Williams exhausted available administrative remedies.