Seventh Circuit Dismisses Prisoner’s Suit as Sanction for Perjury
Seventh Circuit Dismisses Prisoner’s Suit as Sanction for Perjury
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, affirming a trial court’s dismissal of a prisoner’s suit, has sanctioned him for his history of dishonesty in litigation.
Natanael Rivera filed suit in a trial court against prison guard Michael Drake, accusing him of sexual assault. Drake moved for summary judgment on the ground of Rivera’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Despite the trial court’s eventual determination that Drake had waived the exhaustion requirement form a prior proceeding, the court nonetheless dismissed the suit as a sanction as it had concluded that Rivera falsely stated that he had filed a timely administrative grievance. Rivera appealed and on September 3, 2014, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and as it additionally considered Rivera’s pattern of dishonesty in previous suits, the appellate court further initiated possible prosecution for perjury and ordered Rivera to show cause why he should not be fined and have his indigent filing privileges revoked.
Rivera filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against Drake, alleging that he had pushed his finger into Rivera’s anus during a search. Claiming that Rivera had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required, Drake sought summary judgment. In response, Rivera asserted through an affidavit that he had submitted an administrative grievance on December 16, 2008. However, the district court did not consider the question of exhaustion and instead granted summary judgment on the basis of triviality. Rivera appealed.
Holding the district court’s reasoning inadequate to dismiss the assault allegation, the appellate court reversed. The arguments of both parties were reasserted in the district court at a hearing before a different judge. Rivera claimed that he has orally complained of the assault but subsequently alleged that he had filed a grievance. The only grievance on record that indicated the assault was filed in August 2009 and did not include Drake. Rivera admitted it had been filed “for exhaustion purposes.”
The district court concluded that Rivera had lied about the filed grievance to avoid summary judgment for failure to exhaust. The court determined that Drake had waived his argument of exhaustion by not protesting in a brief in the previous proceeding when that judge bypassed the question of exhaustion. Nevertheless, the district court dismissed the suit as a sanction due to Rivera’s perjury. Rivera again appealed.
The appellate court chose not to consider whether Drake had been required to protest the first judge’s decision to bypass the question of exhaustion. Rather, it affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding the dismissal justified, and turned to Rivera’s practice of perjury.
As to Rivera’s current suit, the appellate court stated that “we do not think that the dismissal of a doomed suit [as Rivera’s suit was] is a sufficient response to perjury.” Also reviewing three of Rivera’ prior suits where he had been caught lying, the appellate court decided that it would submit copies of its holding to the district attorney for possible prosecution and “require[e] Rivera to show cause why [the court] should not revoke his privilege of litigating in forma pauperis in the courts of [the Seventh] [C]ircuit and impose financial sanctions that, if unpaid, will lead to the entry of a litigation-control order.”
See: Rivera v. Drake, 767 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2014).
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
Rivera v. Drake
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 767 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2014) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Admin. Award |
| Appeals Court Edition | F.3d |