Julian Devell Grady v. Mayes and Hensley

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Julian Devell Grady’s Eighth Amendment claims concerning alleged excessive force and denial of medical care. The court found a genuine factual dispute over whether Grady submitted a grievance and follow-up notice, potentially rendering administrative remedies unavailable, and stated that a Pavey hearing would be scheduled only if requested.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was denied because a genuine dispute of material fact exists concerning whether Grady submitted the July 11 grievance and August 14 Request for Interview form to the grievance office.
2. An administrative remedy is unavailable when prison employees fail to respond to a properly submitted grievance or required follow-up notice, and the failure leaves the prisoner without a further available remedy to exhaust.
3. Resolving the disputed question of whether Grady submitted the grievance and follow-up notice would require a Pavey hearing, but the court would not schedule one unless defendants requested it.
4. The motions to strike were denied. The supplemental evidence was permitted because it directly responded to an argument raised in defendants' reply and assisted the court, while the unauthorized surreply was denied as moot because it did not affect the disposition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the ground that Grady failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
2. Whether the alleged failure of prison officials to respond to Grady's grievance and follow-up notice made the administrative-remedy process unavailable.
3. Whether defendants' motions to strike Grady's supplemental evidence and unauthorized surreply should be granted.
4. Whether resolution of the exhaustion dispute required a Pavey hearing.

Disposition

other