Wisconsin Prisoner Wins in Seventh Circuit Review of Exhaustive Remedies Case
by Michael Thompson
On December 16, 2016, James Breyley, a prisoner at the New Lisbon Correctional Institute in Juneau County, was punched in the face “ten times, severely fracturing his nose.” A doctor subsequently instructed him to see a specialist within a week to check its progress. Medical staff, however, failed to arrange the visit.
Breyley deposited a prisoner complaint form in the door of his cell, per a guard’s instructions, nine days after the event and two days after the doctor’s instructions expired. That day, he wrote in his journal that he had done so and sent notes about it to several other prisoners. The complaint argued that prison staff had known of the danger and failed to protect him from the attack. It also noted the prison officials had prevented him from seeing the specialist.
Breyley never received confirmation the complaint had been received, which should have occurred within five working days. After a month, he asked one of the complaint examiners why his complaint had not been acknowledged. The examiner had not received the complaint but, after hearing his story of it, told him to file another, which he did that day. His new complaint included mention of the cell door and journal entry. Nevertheless, the complaint and subsequent appeal were rejected.
Suing prison officials and medical staff three years later, Breyley alleged they had failed to protect him from the attack and refused him treatment. The defendants moved to have the case dismissed on procedural grounds as he had failed to exhaust his remedies when he did not file a timely complaint. He submitted a sworn declaration in return that he had filed on time and wrote to others about it. Furthermore, he included a copy of the journal entry. The district court, however, ruled against him, reasoning that he would have a received a confirmation and should have followed up on it when he did not.
Breyley’s ability to sue falls under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which requires the timely exhaustion of remedies available under prison policy, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit says it strictly follows. The defense had argued against Breyley’s claim he had, in fact, filed the complaint, saying that was a “bald assertion,” an argument the district court found compelling. The Court, instead, considered his sworn affidavit and copy of his journal entry to be more than a simple “bald assertion of a timely filing.” The conflict between the defendants who provided Breyley’s complaint history bearing no evidence of a complaint and Breyley’s version of history created a genuine dispute of fact. As such, the Seventh Circuit determined that the dismissal was unwarranted and remanded the case.
The Supreme Court was concurrently reviewing a case about PLRA exhaustion. It held that “parties are entitled to a jury trial when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim protected by the Seventh Amendment.” See: Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460, 145 S. Ct. 1793 (2025). The 7th Circuit chose not weigh in right away on the issue but tasked the lower court with determining if a jury trial would be applicable in Breyley’s case, in addition to its other findings. See: Breyley v. Fuchs, 156 F.4th 845 (7th Cir. 2025).
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
Breyley v. Fuchs
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 156 F.4th 845 (7th Cir. 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |