BURSELL v. PETERS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-14No. No. 20-35405

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Bursell was required to exhaust the prison's administrative grievance procedures before filing his federal lawsuit because those remedies were available to him, even though other inmates' grievances on the same matter were later denied.

Dylan Bursell, an inmate at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, filed a federal lawsuit under Section 1983 alleging he was exposed to pepper spray while in custody. The district court granted summary judgment against him, finding he had not exhausted the prison's administrative grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Bursell argued he should not have to pursue those procedures because they were unavailable to him, pointing to the fact that two other inmates who filed grievances about the same incident were ultimately denied relief.

The appellate court rejected Bursell's argument. The court explained that the timing of the other inmates' denials—which occurred after Bursell's own deadline to file a grievance—did not demonstrate that the grievance process was unavailable to him specifically. Under the prison's own rules, Bursell had until April 2018 to grieve the March incident, whereas the other inmates' denials came in June 2018. The court found that Bursell needed to point to facts showing the process offered no realistic chance of relief in his particular circumstances, not merely that others had been unsuccessful.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether administrative remedies were 'available' under the PLRA when other inmates' grievances on the same issue were denied
Timing and causation: whether other inmates' subsequent denials rendered the grievance process unavailable to a particular inmate
Requirements for exhaustion of administrative remedies in prisoner litigation

Procedural posture

Bursell appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Dylan Bursell appeals the summary judgment in favor of defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) on his Section 1983 claim over alleged secondary exposure to pepper spray while in custody at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution (“EOCI”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, reviewing de novo, we affirm. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc).

Bursell asserts that he was not required to exhaust the prisons administrative grievance procedures because administrative remedies were not “available” to him within the meaning of the PLRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Bursell argues that because two other prisoners were ultimately denied administrative relief over the same alleged pepper spray exposure, the grievance process “operate[d] as a simple dead end” which he was not required to exhaust. Ross v. Blake, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016).

The PLRA requires a prisoner to comply with the prisons own procedures for pursuing administrative remedies in order to properly exhaust. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). Under EOCIs grievance procedures, Bursell was required to grieve the March 13, 2018, pepper spray exposure incident no later than April 12, 2018. The other two prisoners’ grievances were not finally denied until June 2018. That two other prisoners’ grievances were denied after Bursells deadline to file his own grievance is not sufficient to suggest “that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172; see also Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859 (requiring “facts on the ground” to demonstrate that there is “no [ ] potential” of relief through the grievance process). Bursell was therefore required to exhaust EOCIs grievance procedures before filing his federal suit.

AFFIRMED.