Smorgasbord of PLRA grievance issues

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, inmates must file an internal grievance with the jail before they can bring suit in federal court over their civil rights violations. Prior to the PLRA (enacted in 1996), inmates could sue 'round the clock. The PLRA has limited these suits, but it has also given rise to reams of case law addressing when to excuse the failure to file an internal grievance. This is one of those cases.

The case is Saeli v. Cautauqua County, issued on June 8. Plaintiff says he was injured in jail when officers applied the handcuffs too tight while escorting him to a court appearance. He tried to grieve this, but an officer said the handcuffing policy was a County policy, not a jail policy, so it was not grievable. Two weeks later, plaintiff alleges, officers threw him to the ground in the shower and subjected him to further injuries.When plaintiff tried to grieve this incident, he claims, an officer threatened him in the event he followed through on the grievance. Plaintiff withdrew the grievance and instead complained the State Commission on Correction, which referred the complaint to the local sheriff, who investigated the incident. Following a disciplinary hearing at which plaintiff was found guilty of disobeying orders in connection with the shower incident, he revisited his formal grievance and handwrote that he was disciplined for his conduct arising from the shower incident. While plaintiff said he tried to submit this grievance to an unnamed officer, the county denies that and says he sent it to the Commission on Correction which in turn sent it to the sheriff, which investigated.

So we have a smorgasbord of grievance issues under the PLRA. Here is what the Second Circuit says about it.

1. On the excessive force/shower grievance that plaintiff claims he filed against the officers, plaintiff loses. He says he filed one but the jail never processed it. The Court says there is no evidence that plaintiff did so in a timely manner. Yes, even inmate grievances have deadlines like the rest of us. While there was an informal grievance from this incident (that plaintiff completed following the disciplinary hearing), that's not enough because that, too, was filed too long after the beating that comprised this informal complaint.

2. On the claim against the county, plaintiff wins the appeal. The jail's grievance policy says no grievance is required if it involves "issues that are outside the authority of the jail captain to control." Plaintiff says he was told the handcuffing policy was a county issue, not a jail issue. Policy documents demonstrate the accuracy of that. Since the handcuffing policy was outside the captain's control, plaintiff was not required to grieve the injuries. That case will proceed on the merits in the district court.