The court rejects the argument that the amendment of the pre-PLRA exhaustion requirement to affect only "prison conditions" suits, rather than all 1983 actions, requires exclusion of use of force cases. There are other kinds of actions that could be excluded, such as those arising from arrest and conviction. The court also rejects the argument based on Hudson v McMillian and Farmer v Brennan, which distinguish between "conditions of confinement" and excessive force claims. The court relies on McCarthy v Bronson's holding that use of force claims are conditions of confinement claims for purposes of assignment to a magistrate judge.
The fact that only damages are sought does not excuse the plaintiff from exhaustion
The plaintiff alleged that he had been thwarted in utilizing the grievance system and the defendants denied it At 329: "This issue merits an evidentiary hearing.” See: Johnson v. Garraghty, 57 F.Supp.2d 321 (E.D.Va. 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
Johnson v. Garraghty
|Cite||57 F.Supp.2d 321 (E.D.Va. 1999)|