×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Administrative Remedy Exhaustion Rule Restricted
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has limited the rule that
prisoners must exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The appellate court held
that prisoners need not meet the exhaustion requirement in circumstances
where prison officials prevent exhaustion by threatening the prisoner with
harm if he seeks such administrative remedies.
In 1997, Duane Ziemba, a Connecticut prisoner, requested that prison guards
protect him from his cellmate, Patrick Wright. Although Wright had a mental
disorder and a history of assaultive behavior and keeping weapons in his
cell, the guards did nothing to protect Ziemba. On September 9, 1997,
Wright stabbed Ziemba.
On September 12, 1997, guards beat Ziemba, threatened and intimidated him
with police dogs, sprayed him with pepper spray, put him in four-point
restraints in the segregation unit and denied him writing supplies. Later
that day he was transferred to the Northern Correctional Facility and
finally given medical attention.
At Ziemba's behest, his family sent numerous complaints to John Armstrong,
Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections. When those
complaints went unanswered, Ziemba's family initiated an FBI investigation.
Meanwhile, Ziemba filed a 1983 civil rights action. He complained that the
guards' behavior violated rights guaranteed him under the 8th and 14th
Amendments.
In February 2002, Ziemba filed an amended complaint. The state moved for
judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(c), arguing that Ziemba had
not exhausted his administrative remedies. On October 29, 2002, the
district court granted the motion and dismissed Ziemba's lawsuit. Ziemba
appealed.
The Second Circuit ultimately reversed the case and remanded it to the
district court, holding that it could not be dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies when prison guards had precluded Ziemba
from pursuing such exhaustion by their abuse and threats. In other words,
the appellate court refused to require prisoners to pursue administrative
procedures that prison guards make it impossible for them to pursue. See:
Ziemba v. Wezner, 366 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2004).
prisoners must exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The appellate court held
that prisoners need not meet the exhaustion requirement in circumstances
where prison officials prevent exhaustion by threatening the prisoner with
harm if he seeks such administrative remedies.
In 1997, Duane Ziemba, a Connecticut prisoner, requested that prison guards
protect him from his cellmate, Patrick Wright. Although Wright had a mental
disorder and a history of assaultive behavior and keeping weapons in his
cell, the guards did nothing to protect Ziemba. On September 9, 1997,
Wright stabbed Ziemba.
On September 12, 1997, guards beat Ziemba, threatened and intimidated him
with police dogs, sprayed him with pepper spray, put him in four-point
restraints in the segregation unit and denied him writing supplies. Later
that day he was transferred to the Northern Correctional Facility and
finally given medical attention.
At Ziemba's behest, his family sent numerous complaints to John Armstrong,
Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections. When those
complaints went unanswered, Ziemba's family initiated an FBI investigation.
Meanwhile, Ziemba filed a 1983 civil rights action. He complained that the
guards' behavior violated rights guaranteed him under the 8th and 14th
Amendments.
In February 2002, Ziemba filed an amended complaint. The state moved for
judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(c), arguing that Ziemba had
not exhausted his administrative remedies. On October 29, 2002, the
district court granted the motion and dismissed Ziemba's lawsuit. Ziemba
appealed.
The Second Circuit ultimately reversed the case and remanded it to the
district court, holding that it could not be dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies when prison guards had precluded Ziemba
from pursuing such exhaustion by their abuse and threats. In other words,
the appellate court refused to require prisoners to pursue administrative
procedures that prison guards make it impossible for them to pursue. See:
Ziemba v. Wezner, 366 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2004).
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
Ziemba v. Wezner
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 366 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2004). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Ziemba v. Wezner, 366 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 04/23/2004)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2003
[2] Docket No. 02-0340
[3] 366 F.3d 161, 2004
[4] April 23, 2004
[5] DUANE ZIEMBA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE WEZNER,I/O, JOHN ARMSTRONG, I/O, P. CALCINARI, I/O, R. MUCCINO, I/O, P. PETERS, I/O, E. SAUNDRY, I/O, J. BULGER, I/O, T. TORRES, I/O, J. BANDZAK, I/O, BRIAN ZAWALINSKI, I/O, CICERO CALLENDER, I/O, GARLAND SHELL, I/O, D. J. HARRIS, I/O, SEAN CULLAGH, I/O, WILLIAM O'CONNOR, I/O, JONATHAN MOORE, I/O, ALL DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Donna F. Martinez, Magistrate Judge) dismissing plaintiff-appellant's suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies in compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
[8] VACATED and REMANDED.
[9] Duane Ziemba, pro se, Somers, Ct, for Plaintiff-Appellant (on submission).
[10] Matthew B. Beizer, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, on the brief), Hartford, Ct, for Defendants-Appellees (on submission).
[11] Before: Walker, Chief Judge, Van Graafeiland and Straub, Circuit Judges.
[12] Per curiam.
[13] Submitted April 6, 2004
[14] Plaintiff-Appellant Duane Ziemba, pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Donna F. Martinez, Magistrate Judge) dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
[15] In February 2002, Ziemba filed an amended § 1983 complaint, alleging violations of rights conferred under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as Connecticut state law. In the complaint, he alleges the following facts to support his claims: While was incarcerated at Cheshire Correctional Facility, he had filed an emergency grievance requesting that prison officials protect him from his cell mate, Patrick Wright, because Wright had a mental disorder and had a history of assaultive behavior and keeping weapons in his cell. Prison officials took no measures to protect him, and, as a result, on September 9, 1997, Wright stabbed him.
[16] After the stabbing, he was placed in a stripped segregation cell, denied medical care, and threatened by a prison official, who also instructed other prison officials not to place any mention of the stabbing on the prison record.
[17] Ziemba further alleges that he was taken to a holding cell at the Middletown Courthouse for a previously scheduled court appearance, at which time the courthouse sheriffs and other officials refused to allow Ziemba to appear in court due to his shocking condition; and that the Middletown Court officials ultimately telephoned Cheshire Correctional Facility in an attempt to assist Ziemba. Upon returning to Cheshire, Ziemba alleges, various officer defendants, in retaliation for the telephone call from Middletown, continued to detain him in segregation and refused him food and medical care.
[18] Ziemba also alleges that prison officials escorted him to an empty shower room on September 12, 1997, and threatened him, intimidated him with police dogs, beat him, and sprayed pepper spray in his eyes and mouth. After the beating, Ziemba alleges, prison officials placed him in four-point restraints on a bed in the segregation unit, where he was denied medical care; the same day, prison officials transferred him to Northern Correctional Facility, where he was given medical attention after being observed by the medical staff.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2003
[2] Docket No. 02-0340
[3] 366 F.3d 161, 2004
[4] April 23, 2004
[5] DUANE ZIEMBA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE WEZNER,I/O, JOHN ARMSTRONG, I/O, P. CALCINARI, I/O, R. MUCCINO, I/O, P. PETERS, I/O, E. SAUNDRY, I/O, J. BULGER, I/O, T. TORRES, I/O, J. BANDZAK, I/O, BRIAN ZAWALINSKI, I/O, CICERO CALLENDER, I/O, GARLAND SHELL, I/O, D. J. HARRIS, I/O, SEAN CULLAGH, I/O, WILLIAM O'CONNOR, I/O, JONATHAN MOORE, I/O, ALL DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Donna F. Martinez, Magistrate Judge) dismissing plaintiff-appellant's suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies in compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
[8] VACATED and REMANDED.
[9] Duane Ziemba, pro se, Somers, Ct, for Plaintiff-Appellant (on submission).
[10] Matthew B. Beizer, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, on the brief), Hartford, Ct, for Defendants-Appellees (on submission).
[11] Before: Walker, Chief Judge, Van Graafeiland and Straub, Circuit Judges.
[12] Per curiam.
[13] Submitted April 6, 2004
[14] Plaintiff-Appellant Duane Ziemba, pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Donna F. Martinez, Magistrate Judge) dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
[15] In February 2002, Ziemba filed an amended § 1983 complaint, alleging violations of rights conferred under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as Connecticut state law. In the complaint, he alleges the following facts to support his claims: While was incarcerated at Cheshire Correctional Facility, he had filed an emergency grievance requesting that prison officials protect him from his cell mate, Patrick Wright, because Wright had a mental disorder and had a history of assaultive behavior and keeping weapons in his cell. Prison officials took no measures to protect him, and, as a result, on September 9, 1997, Wright stabbed him.
[16] After the stabbing, he was placed in a stripped segregation cell, denied medical care, and threatened by a prison official, who also instructed other prison officials not to place any mention of the stabbing on the prison record.
[17] Ziemba further alleges that he was taken to a holding cell at the Middletown Courthouse for a previously scheduled court appearance, at which time the courthouse sheriffs and other officials refused to allow Ziemba to appear in court due to his shocking condition; and that the Middletown Court officials ultimately telephoned Cheshire Correctional Facility in an attempt to assist Ziemba. Upon returning to Cheshire, Ziemba alleges, various officer defendants, in retaliation for the telephone call from Middletown, continued to detain him in segregation and refused him food and medical care.
[18] Ziemba also alleges that prison officials escorted him to an empty shower room on September 12, 1997, and threatened him, intimidated him with police dogs, beat him, and sprayed pepper spray in his eyes and mouth. After the beating, Ziemba alleges, prison officials placed him in four-point restraints on a bed in the segregation unit, where he was denied medical care; the same day, prison officials transferred him to Northern Correctional Facility, where he was given medical attention after being observed by the medical staff.