Prison Litigation, Administrative Remedies, and Jury Trial

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down five opinions in civil cases this morning. One of them is a law-enforcement-related civil case, a category we keep tabs on at CJLF.

In 1995, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to cut down on the amount of federal court litigation involving prisoners. One requirement of the law, a common one in cases involving government agencies, is that a prisoner must first try any administrative remedies available in the prison system before turning to the courts. The Supreme Court has previously decided that a remedy is not “available” for this purpose if it is unavailable in practice, even if it exists on the books.

So, if a prison guard accused of misconduct blocks the prisoner from the grievance process by destroying his papers, the process would be unavailable, and the prisoner can proceed to federal court. But if that blocking is disputed, who decides if it really happened, the federal judge or a jury? That was the question in Perttu v. Richards, decided today.

In this case, the guard moved for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust. The magistrate judge held a hearing, heard the witnesses to the claimed destruction of the papers, and decided that they were not credible. The district court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that the Seventh Amendment gave the inmate a constitutional right to jury trial on the disputed fact.

The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, to avoid the constitutional issue by deciding that the PLRA itself requires a jury trial of this factual dispute, which it finds to be “intertwined” with the merits. That’s quite a stretch, as Justice Barrett notes in dissent, as the statute stays nothing at all on this issue. She also notes that the court is departing from its settled practice by deciding an issue that was not briefed or decided in the court of appeals. “[T]he Court spins a statutory theory that Richards has never even mentioned, much less developed.” Justice Barrett goes on to discuss the Seventh Amendment claim, finding that it lacks merit.

Given that today’s decision is a statutory one, not a constitutional one, Congress could change the result if it chose to do so. If it did, the constitutional issue would then have to be decided. I doubt Congress will bother, though.