Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison

Citation802 F.3d 1205
Decision Date23 September 2015
Docket NumberNo. 13–15117.,13–15117.
PartiesShawn Wayne WHATLEY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. WARDEN, WARE STATE PRISON, Rodney Smith, Corrections Officer (C.E.R.T.Team) Telfair State Prison, Exam Nurse, Ware State Prison, Michael Griffin, Supervisor of Lock Down Unit & Tactical Squad Commander, Ware State Prison, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Merritt Ellen McAlister, Cameron W. Ellis, King & Spalding, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Tina Michelle Piper, Samuel Scott Olens, Devon Orland, Georgia Department of Law, Atlanta, GA, for DefendantsAppellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 5:12–cv–00142–LGW–JEG.

Before WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and VINSON,* District Judge.

Opinion

MARTIN, Circuit Judge:

Shawn Wayne Whatley appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prison-conditions suit. His claims relate to a beating by prison staff, for which he was denied medical treatment. Although he submitted several prison grievances before suing, the District Court dismissed his suit for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies established by the prison. We reverse for two reasons: because the District Court failed to follow the two-step process we have created for deciding exhaustion challenges; and because in concluding that one of Mr. Whatley's grievances did not exhaust, the District Court enforced a procedural bar that the prison may have waived.

I. Legal Background

Before a prisoner may bring a prison-conditions suit under § 1983, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires that he exhaust all available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ; see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1822, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). The purpose of the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is to “afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2387, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (quotation omitted). To properly exhaust, a prisoner must [c]ompl[y] with prison grievance procedures.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 922–23, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).

Georgia's prison grievance procedures are set out in a standard operating procedure. See Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1080–81 (11th Cir.2008) (describing the relevant SOP). The grievance process has three steps. First, an informal grievance. A prisoner must file an informal grievance within ten days of becoming aware of the facts giving rise to his grievance. He will receive a receipt when he files an informal grievance. A prison official must respond in writing within ten days. Second, a formal grievance. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the response to his informal grievance, he may request a formal grievance form. The prisoner must file a formal grievance within five days of receiving the written response to his informal grievance. Importantly, the SOP provides that a prisoner must “complete the informal grievance procedure before being issued a formal grievance” form.1

After receiving a formal grievance, a prison official must “thoroughly investigate” and “write a complete report,” and then make a recommendation to the grievance coordinator. The grievance coordinator reviews the report, indicates whether she agrees or disagrees, and submits her recommendation to the prison's warden or superintendent. The warden or superintendent reviews the grievance, then requests further investigation or responds in writing to the prisoner. The warden must respond within thirty days after a prisoner files a formal grievance. If the warden does not respond within forty days—thirty days plus a one-time, ten-day extension—the prisoner may appeal, as described immediately below.

Third, an appeal. A prisoner may appeal a formal grievance to the Office of the Commissioner within five days of receiving a response to his formal grievance. The prisoner must include in his appeal both the completed formal and informal grievance forms, and the commissioner must respond within 90 days. The SOP does not provide a mechanism for appealing from an informal grievance.

After a prisoner has exhausted the grievance procedures, he may file suit under § 1983. In response to a prisoner suit, defendants may bring a motion to dismiss and raise as a defense the prisoner's failure to exhaust these administrative remedies. See Turner, 541 F.3d at 1081. In Turner v. Burnside we established a two-step process for resolving motions to dismiss prisoner lawsuits for failure to exhaust. 541 F.3d at 1082. First, district courts look to the factual allegations in the motion to dismiss and those in the prisoner's response and accept the prisoner's view of the facts as true. The court should dismiss if the facts as stated by the prisoner show a failure to exhaust. Id. Second, if dismissal is not warranted on the prisoner's view of the facts, the court makes specific findings to resolve disputes of fact, and should dismiss if, based on those findings, defendants have shown a failure to exhaust. Id. at 1082–83 ; see also id. at 1082 (explaining that defendants bear the burden of showing a failure to exhaust).

We “review de novo a District Court's interpretation and application of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)'s exhaustion requirement.” Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152, 1155 (11th Cir.2005). To the extent the District Court made specific factual findings, we review those for clear error, Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1174–75 (11th Cir.2011) (per curiam), but otherwise we “accept as true the facts as set forth in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in [Mr. Whatley's] favor,” Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th Cir.2010).

II. Factual and Procedural History

Mr. Whatley alleges that on January 12, 2011, he was beaten by guards at Telfair State Prison. Within hours of the beating, he was transferred to Ware State Prison. At Ware State Prison, despite his excruciating pain and difficulty breathing, a nurse simply told him to take Tylenol

and, with a grin, told him he would “be real sore for a while.” Mr. Whatley filed several grievances in which he at least arguably referred to the beating and the ensuing lack of medical treatment, three of which are relevant to our decision.

A. January 18 Grievance

On January 18, 2011, Mr. Whatley submitted an informal grievance-what we will refer to as his January 18 grievance. He received no response. In April, without filing a formal grievance, he filed an appeal to the Office of the Commissioner. In his appeal, he wrote that he was “severely and unjustly beaten” and transferred from Telfair to Ware. He explained that he was appealing his January 18 informal grievance only in April because he had not received an appeal form and had heard no response to his other grievances. The record is silent about what happened to this appeal.

B. “Imminent Danger” Grievance (Number 80327)

On February 10, 2011, just less than a month after the beating and a day after he was again transferred, this time from Ware to the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison (GDCP), Mr. Whatley filed another informal grievance, numbered 80327. He wrote that he was in “imminent danger”—so we refer to this as the “imminent danger” grievance—and he requested transfer to a non-state facility or “protective custody from all Georgia] Department of Corrections] staff/employees, due to being severely beaten and transferred without treatment.” This grievance was rejected on February 17. A prison official explained that the grievance addressed prisoner transfers, which according to the SOP are not grievable issues.

C. Grievance Number 80940

On March 7, 2011, Mr. Whatley filed the last grievance relevant to this appeal, this one numbered 80940. In it, he explicitly referred back to his imminent danger grievance: “I filed an ‘imminent danger’ grievance, he wrote, and he said that “no response has been rendered” and “the allotted response time has expired.” (Emphasis added.) He requested a formal grievance, and said that his grievances were being discarded. Grievance 80940 was also denied. A prison official recognized that this informal grievance referred back to his imminent danger grievance, but the official indicated that the imminent danger grievance had been rejected because it raised a non-grievable issue.

On March 22, the same day informal grievance 80940 was denied, Mr. Whatley filed a formal grievance. He again referred back to his imminent danger grievance, and also to the beating itself and the denial of medical care:

Since my arrival on 2–9–11 [at GDCP] I have filed an informal grievance every week, the grievances are not being processed according to policy! Grievance # 80327, “Imminent Danger” describe[d] the treatment that I have been under since 1–12–11, when I was unjustly and severely beat[en] at Telfair State Prison by [Officer] Smith and two other staff, and then transferred without medical attention! Then again transferred and place[d] in cruel and unusual punishment.

The warden rejected Mr. Whatley's formal grievance, explaining that his earlier, imminent danger grievance was rejected because it addressed a non-grievable issue, viz., institutional transfers. But importantly, the warden also appeared to address Mr. Whatley's claims about the beating and lack of medical care on the merits. He wrote: “Per phone conversation with [a nurse], you were seen at medical upon arrival [at GDCP] on 2–9–11 and there was no evidence supporting your claim of being severely beaten. (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Whatley appealed the warden's denial of his formal grievance. He responded to each of the warden's reasons for rejecting his formal grievance, insisting that he had receipts for his weekly grievances, and that this grievance (80940) was the only one that had received a response. Again he referred to the beating, and he disagreed with the warden's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
211 cases
  • Grimage v. Hilliard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • December 5, 2016
    ...grievance procedures." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 922-23, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). In this vein, there is a two-step process for resolving the matter: After a prisoner has exhaus......
  • Hall v. Palmer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • October 20, 2017
    ...grievance procedures." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 922-23, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 2015). Several factors guide the Court in reviewing the matter of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Initially, the ......
  • Rinaldi v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 12, 2018
    ...those procedures does not contravene the PLRA. See Reyes v. Smith , 810 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2016) ; Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison , 802 F.3d 1205, 1215 (11th Cir. 2015) ; Hammett v. Cofield , 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Maddox v. Love , 655 F.3d 709, 722 (7th ......
  • Oliver v. Whitehead
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • January 3, 2017
    ...procedures." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 922-23, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 2015). In undertaking a review concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court must employ a two-step process:Aft......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • PANDEMIC RULES: COVID-19 AND THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT'S EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 3, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...rule to find a lack of exhaustion after the prison itself declined to enforce the rule.") (quoting Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205, 1215 (11th Cir. 2015))); Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2016); Whatley, 802 F.3d at 1213-14 ("We join our sister Circuits in h......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT