Johnson v. Poulin, et al

Filing 920100318

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'The district court disposed of the other claims against other\
defendants by way of summary judgment, leaving only the "failure to\
protect" claim against Thyng. On appeal, Johnson raises no issues\
with respect to the district court\'s resolution of his other\
claims. Accordingly, we omit any description and discussion of\
these other claims.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'We need not address Johnson\'s contention that Thyng\
interfered with his filing of his level two grievance with the\
warden. For purposes of determining whether Johnson had complied\
with the exhaustion requirement, the district court made several\
assumptions in Johnson\'s favor. First, there was some dispute as\
to whether Johnson used the proper grievance form. Johnson\
asserted that he used an "inmate request" form because Thyng would\
not give him a grievance form and threatened to retaliate against\
him. The district court accepted Johnson\'s contention as true for\
purposes of its analysis and further accepted, for purposes of\
analysis, that the fact that the grievance was filed on a request\
form, rather than a grievance form, was not determinative of\
whether Johnson had complied with the exhaustion requirement. \
Second, the court accepted Johnson\'s version of the facts regarding\
his compliance with the first and second levels of the grievance\
procedure and, so, assumed, in Johnson\'s favor, that he had\
complied with the grievance process through level two. We, too,\
make these same assumptions in Johnson\'s favor.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'At the bench trial, Johnson\'s explanation for his failure to\
complete the third level of grievance was somewhat different. He\
explained there that, because he had already been assaulted, he\
believed that filing that level of grievance would be futile. The\
district court rejected that rationale on the basis of Booth v.\
Churner, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6 (rejecting a "futility" exception and\
holding that PLRA mandates exhaustion despite the fact that the\
grievance process could not provide the inmate with money damages)\
and Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir.\
2002) (holding that inmate must exhaust administrative remedies at\
the first prison facility even if transferred to a different\
facility).\
              Defendant Thyng argues that Johnson\'s current explanation,\
i.e., that he was "satisfied" with the prison\'s response of\
transferring Bickham, was not raised in the district court and is,\
therefore, waived. As Johnson is pro se, we may grant him some\
leeway as to whether his current claim of being "satisfied" by the\
transfer is but another way of describing the circumstances in the\
wake of the assault. In any event, we need not rely on the waiver\
argument as, for the reasons stated in the text, Johnson\'s\
contention lacks merit.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "