Gregory Potter sought 42 U.S.C. §1983 relief for an access to courts violation. Potter did not name the defendants he was suing in his grievance filings, though the trial court dismissed Potter’s suit because of this.
Potter appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Appellate Court held that the trial court had erred in requiring Potter to name the defendants in his grievances for exhaustion to be complete. The court noted that the Supreme Court had since ruled that “proper exhaustion” is determined by looking to the requirements of the grievance procedures themselves and not judicially created rules for exhaustion.
The trial court’s order was accordingly reversed.
See: Potter v. Espinose, No. M2008-02542-COA-R3-CV (Ca. Tenn. 2009).
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
Potter v. Espinose
|Cite||No. M2008-02542-COA-R3-CV (Ca. Tenn. 2009)|
|Level||State Court of Appeals|