Jeffery L. Anderson v. Joseph T. Hernandez, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies in Jeffery L. Anderson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning an alleged delay in providing psychotropic medication. The court held that disputed facts regarding the availability of the jail’s grievance process created a genuine issue of material fact. The court deferred ruling on qualified immunity pending resolution of exhaustion and directed defendants either to brief the effect of Perttu v. Richards or withdraw the exhaustion defense.

Holdings

1. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the failure-to-exhaust defense because Anderson's testimony that he did not know of the grievance process and could not have used it due to mental instability created a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether administrative remedies were available.
2. The court deferred ruling on qualified immunity until the exhaustion issue was resolved.
3. If defendants pursue the exhaustion defense, the parties must address whether Perttu v. Richards requires a jury trial because the exhaustion issue may be intertwined with a genuine dispute concerning the merits; if defendants waive exhaustion, the court will then rule on qualified immunity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the PLRA affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
2. Whether the undisputed record permitted summary judgment on defendants' qualified-immunity defense to Anderson's § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim.
3. Whether disputed facts concerning exhaustion must be resolved by the court or by a jury when the exhaustion issue may be intertwined with the merits of the underlying claim.

Disposition

other