Perttu v. Richards
Overview
Overview
Perttu v. Richards involves a Michigan prisoner who was placed in a unit with inmates known to be dangerous and was assaulted, then filed a civil rights suit. The Supreme Court addressed the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that prisoners exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit, specifically when a prisoner's ability to file a grievance was obstructed.
The Facts
Facts
Perttu, a prisoner in Michigan, was assaulted by other inmates after corrections officials allegedly placed him in danger. When he attempted to pursue the prison's grievance process, he alleged that officials interfered with his ability to file a proper grievance, ultimately preventing him from completing the exhaustion process. His Section 1983 lawsuit was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The question was what standard governs exhaustion when a prisoner alleges obstruction.
The Issue
Issue
Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. When a prisoner alleges that prison officials interfered with the grievance process and made remedies unavailable, what must the prisoner prove, and who decides the factual question of availability: the judge or the jury? Perttu argued availability is a factual issue for the jury; the government argued it is a threshold matter for the court.
The Rules
Rule
The PLRA, 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(a), requires prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing suit. Under Ross v. Blake, the exhaustion requirement applies only to remedies that are genuinely available; remedies that are effectively unavailable due to obstruction, intimidation, or incapacity do not require exhaustion. The Court addressed how courts should resolve factual disputes about availability.
The Application
Analysis
Perttu's claim implicates the PLRA's exhaustion requirement because he filed a Section 1983 suit without completing the prison's grievance process, triggering the threshold question of whether exhaustion was actually required. Under Ross v. Blake, exhaustion applies only to remedies that are genuinely available; Perttu's allegation that corrections officials actively interfered with his ability to file a proper grievance invokes the availability exception. If officials obstructed the remedy, the requirement falls away. The central issue becomes whether Perttu established sufficient facts showing the remedy was rendered unavailable through official obstruction, which determines whether the exhaustion bar applies to defeat his suit. This case clarifies the evidentiary and procedural standard by which courts assess prisoner claims that the administrative remedy has been effectively blocked.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Perttu clarifies the procedural mechanism for resolving PLRA exhaustion disputes when a prisoner alleges that officials made the grievance process unavailable. The ruling affects how consistently prisoners can overcome exhaustion dismissals by showing obstruction, and whether those factual disputes go to a jury or are resolved by a judge at a threshold stage. The decision has broad implications given the large volume of prisoner civil rights litigation dismissed on exhaustion grounds.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support