Dale Herman v. Aaron Hawkins, et al.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Dale Herman’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court concludes that factual disputes remain concerning the timeliness and availability of Herman’s MDOC grievance process, including his placement in segregation and the handling of his grievance appeals. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford recommends that the motion for summary judgment be denied.

Holdings

1. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, and defendants bear the burden of pleading and proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. A grievance need not necessarily name a prison official if it provides enough information to give fair notice of the official's involvement; Herman's grievance could exhaust his claim against Hawkins because the facts and related records identified Hawkins as the staff member involved.
3. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because a genuine dispute existed over whether MDOC properly rejected Herman's grievance as untimely and whether the grievance process was available to him while he was in segregation.
4. Herman did not procedurally default his challenge to the untimeliness rejection by failing to raise that challenge at both Step II and Step III; his Step II challenge was sufficient to create a factual issue concerning the propriety of the rejection.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants established as a matter of law that Herman failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies under the PLRA.
2. Whether Herman's failure to name Hawkins in the Step I grievance necessarily rendered his excessive-force claim against Hawkins unexhausted.
3. Whether summary judgment was appropriate when MDOC rejected Herman's grievance as untimely without explaining the basis for the rejection and did not respond to his Step II appeal.
4. Whether Herman procedurally defaulted his challenge to the Step I untimeliness rejection by failing to raise the issue at both Step II and Step III.

Disposition

other