Summary
This United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decision denies a correctional officer's motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff inmate's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Following a Pavey evidentiary hearing, the court found that the inmate made good-faith efforts to file a grievance through the mail after being transferred to another facility, but the grievance was lost due to routing issues beyond his control. Consequently, the court determined the exhaustion process was rendered unavailable and allowed the Eighth Amendment excessive force and deliberate indifference claims to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Wright exhausted available administrative remedies before filing his § 1983 claims.
- Whether the KCDC grievance process was rendered unavailable when Wright made a good-faith attempt to mail a grievance after his transfer and KCDC did not receive or respond to it.
- Whether Aker was entitled to summary judgment on the ground that Wright failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Holdings
- The exhaustion process was rendered unavailable to Wright because he made a good-faith and procedurally appropriate attempt to submit a grievance after his transfer, but KCDC did not receive it and its procedures provided no instructions for what a transferred prisoner should do when no response was received.
- Aker was not entitled to summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.
Key quotations
“For whatever reason, despite following the appropriate procedures, KCDC did not receive the December 21 grievance. For all intents and purposes, the exhaustion process was rendered unavailable to Wright.” (at 5)
Factual background
Wright was incarcerated at the Kenosha County Detention Center when, on December 15, 2023, he alleged that Aker repeatedly slammed both of his arms in a cell door and that he was then pepper-sprayed and treated by a nurse. Wright was transferred to Dodge County Correctional Institution approximately one hour later. After Dodge rejected his grievance because the incident occurred elsewhere, Wright completed a KCDC grievance, mailed it to the address listed on the KCDC form, and received no response. KCDC had no record of receiving the mailed grievance, and its procedures did not explain how a transferred prisoner should proceed when no response was received.
Procedural history
Wright, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, was permitted to proceed on an excessive-force claim against Aker and a deliberate-indifference claim against John Doe defendants. Aker moved for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. The court determined that a factual dispute required a Pavey hearing, held the hearing on May 19, 2025, and concluded that Wright's inability to complete the grievance process resulted from the process being unavailable rather than from his failure to make a good-faith effort.
Remand instructions
The court denied Aker's motion for summary judgment and stated that it would issue an amended scheduling order. No remand was ordered.