Bennett v. Borden, Correctional Officer, et al.

Summary

The court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the PLRA exhaustion defense in Kevin Bennett’s excessive-force action arising from his detention at the Knox County Jail. The court held that disputed facts concerning the availability of the jail’s electronic kiosk and paper grievance forms precluded summary judgment. The court also denied motions to strike and granted Bennett’s motion to take notice in part.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment must be denied when a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether administrative remedies were available to the prisoner.
2. Silent video evidence that permits competing reasonable interpretations does not eliminate a genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment.
3. Bennett's surreply was timely under the prison mailbox rule because he signed it on August 1 and it was treated as filed when submitted to prison staff for mailing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the PLRA exhaustion defense when conflicting evidence created a genuine dispute about whether the jail's grievance process was available to Bennett.
2. Whether the silent video footage and other evidence conclusively established that Bennett could access the kiosk or obtain a paper grievance.
3. Whether Bennett's surreply was timely under the prison mailbox rule.
4. Whether Bennett's motion to take notice and the parties' motions to strike should be granted.

Disposition

other