×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
State Law Claims in Federal Suits Must Be Exhausted
Use of force is a prison condition for purposes of PLRA; the unavailability of damages does not excuse exhaustion (citing prior circuit authority for both propositions) This court uses the 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2) definition of "conditions of confinement" as a definition of prison conditions.
A plaintiff who said he filed a grievance, but who had been told by prison officials no grievance was on record and he should refile, had not exhausted Even if he did file the grievance initially, he was obliged to continue to the next step within the prescribed time frames if he did not receive a response or a satisfactory response from prison officials At 309: "We have previously held that an inmate cannot simply fail to file a grievance or abandon the process before completion and claim that he has exhausted his remedies or that it is futile for him to do so because his grievance is now time-barred under the regulations"
State law claims must be exhausted. The exhaustion requirement applies to claims brought under 1983 "or any other Federal law," and the diversity jurisdiction statute is a federal law.
The plaintiff alleged that he was restrained for 18 hours and not allowed to use the toilet, left to sit in his own urine, not provided fresh drinking water for two 8-hour periods. At 310: ". . . [W]e have previously held that deprivations of fresh water and access to the toilet for a 20-hour period, while harsh, were not cruel and unusual punishment." Defendants also provided evidence that adequate toilet breaks and water were provided to him, which he did not refute. See: Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 1999).
A plaintiff who said he filed a grievance, but who had been told by prison officials no grievance was on record and he should refile, had not exhausted Even if he did file the grievance initially, he was obliged to continue to the next step within the prescribed time frames if he did not receive a response or a satisfactory response from prison officials At 309: "We have previously held that an inmate cannot simply fail to file a grievance or abandon the process before completion and claim that he has exhausted his remedies or that it is futile for him to do so because his grievance is now time-barred under the regulations"
State law claims must be exhausted. The exhaustion requirement applies to claims brought under 1983 "or any other Federal law," and the diversity jurisdiction statute is a federal law.
The plaintiff alleged that he was restrained for 18 hours and not allowed to use the toilet, left to sit in his own urine, not provided fresh drinking water for two 8-hour periods. At 310: ". . . [W]e have previously held that deprivations of fresh water and access to the toilet for a 20-hour period, while harsh, were not cruel and unusual punishment." Defendants also provided evidence that adequate toilet breaks and water were provided to him, which he did not refute. See: Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 1999).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Hartsfield v. Vidor
| Year | 1999 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 199 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 1999) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |