吃瓜大本营

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (鈥淧LRA鈥�), incarcerated plaintiffs must exhaust 鈥渁vailable鈥� administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. 42 U.S.C. 搂 1997e(a). Complex grievance procedures often present insurmountable obstacles that incarcerated plaintiffs cannot overcome. And many incarcerated people face additional barriers, including high rates of serious mental illness and mental disabilities, that diminish or eviscerate their ability to successfully exhaust.

Plaintiff Jeffery Geter is incarcerated in Baldwin State Prison in Georgia. He is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, Parkinson鈥檚 disease, epilepsy, and may have Alzheimer鈥檚 disease. He has only an 8th grade and describes difficulties with comprehension. Mr. Geter also underwent a craniotomy, which involves the removal of brain tissue.

Mr. Geter filed a grievance to obtain better medical care following his craniotomy, to no avail. Thereafter, Mr. Geter filed a pro se lawsuit in federal court seeking appropriate medical care. The Georgia Department of Corrections (鈥淕DC鈥�) moved to dismiss his claims, arguing that he had not properly exhausted his administrative remedies under the PLRA. The GDC grievance process requires, among other things, that prisoners include only one issue per grievance. Mr. Geter included at least three issues in his grievance.

The magistrate judge recommended the court deny Defendant鈥檚 motion to dismiss, concluding that the 鈥淒efendant has failed to show that the administrative grievance process was 鈥榓vailable鈥� to Plaintiff, given Plaintiff鈥檚 alleged and apparently deficiencies in mental capacity.鈥� The magistrate also found that the April 2016 grievance was written in someone else鈥檚 handwriting鈥攎ost likely a staff member. The magistrate concluded that if 鈥淧laintiff received assistance 鈥� and yet was not given assistance in understanding and complying with the 鈥榮ingle issue鈥� rule, then arguably, the grievance system was not available to Plaintiff due both to his alleged mental deficiencies and to Plaintiff鈥檚 possible reliance on misleading official assistance.鈥�

The district court judge declined to accept the magistrate鈥檚 recommendation and granted Defendant鈥檚 motion to dismiss.

We represented Mr. Geter in his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that administrative remedies can be 鈥渦navailable鈥� under the PLRA due to a plaintiff鈥檚 mental disabilities or when staff members interfere with the process. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with us, in part, and remanded the case back to district court 鈥� allowing Mr. Geter to pursue his claims for adequate medical care.