Ninth Circuit Revives Prisoner’s Claim Based on Guard’s Thwarting of Administrative Remedies
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a prisoner’s civil rights action for the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court found the prisoner was “reliably informed” by a prison grievance coordinator that the remedy was “not available to him.”
The appeal was filed by Jory Strizich, a prisoner at Montana State Prison (MSP). He alleged that on April 20, 2018, guard Dustin Palmer planted a substance resembling methamphetamine in his cell in retaliation for Strizich’s frequent filing of “grievances and lawsuits” against prison officials. Eight months later, prison officials tested the substance and confirmed it was not a narcotic, resulting in Strizich’s release from solitary confinement.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana granted Palmer’s motion for summary judgment, finding Strizich failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Strrizich appealed.
The Ninth Circuit found that Palmer satisfied his initial burden that Strizich failed to exhaust a “generally available” administrative remedy, for the Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) required the filing of a grievance “within five working days of the action or omission that caused the complaint.” Strizich did not file a grievance until August 25, 2018, over four months after the incident. That grievance was denied as untimely.
Strizich countered with a sworn statement, testifying that on April 23, 2018, he asked Regina Dees-Sheffield, a Grievance Coordinator at MSP, how to “proceed with respect to officer Palmer’s retaliatory fabrication of evidence.” Dees-Sheffield responded that Strizich could not use the IGP because his complaint was the subject of an internal prison disciplinary matter.
Therefore, Strizich was instructed to raise the issue in that “disciplinary process to address Palmer’s conduct.” She further stated that if Strizich’s custody level was raised as a result of the incident, he could raise his complaint against Palmer in the “classification process.”
In August 2018, Strizich obtained a copy of the IGP policy manual and learned he had been given incorrect information. Strizich informed Dees-Sheffield that she had misinterpreted the procedure, and she granted him permission to file belated grievance. The responding officials dismissed both levels of Strizich’s grievance as untimely.
The Ninth Circuit concluded “that a reasonable trier of fact could find that, during the time limits within which Strizich was required to file his grievance under the IGP, Strizich was reliably informed that he could not use the IGP in his case.” Therefore, the administrative remedy was “effectively unavailable” to him and fit within a PLRA exception to exhaustion. See: Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Court rejected Palmer’s argument that statements by Dees-Sheffield were inadmissible hearsay. The utterances were not offered for the truth of the statements, but for the legal effect they had in making the IGP unavailable. Strizich was represented on appeal by the MacArthur Justice Center and the American Civil Liberties Union. The district court’s order granting Palmer summary judgment was reversed. See: Strizich v. Palmer, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17908 (9th Cir.).
Additional source: The MacArthur Justice Center
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
Strizich v. Palmer
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17908 (9th Cir.) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |