Booth, Timothy v. Churner, C. O., et al. (05/29/2001)

By: Arundhati Parmar, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners, seeking only monetary damages, to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a federal action, where monetary damages are not available under the applicable administrative process?

Brief

""I need out of this jail before they kill me,"" Timothy Booth wrote in April 1997, asking for a transfer from the State Correctional Institute in Pennsylvania. ""And I want each and every officer punished for assaulting me. Please, Im in fear of my life.""

In that handwritten complaint filed in federal court in Pennsylvania, Booth alleged that a number of prison guards had, on four separate occasions, punched him in the face, injured his shoulder, shoved him into a shelf, tightened and twisted his handcuffs and thrown cleaning liquid at his face. He asked for monetary damages and non-monetary relief as part of his civil action.

In his suit, Booth claimed to have been assaulted by prison staff during the previous year. He had previously filed grievances in the prison system, but did not follow up with the appeals process.

The federal judge dismissed his complaint ""without prejudice,"" since Booth had not exhausted the prison grievance system before filing an ""excessive force"" action in federal court.

A section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) states that, ""No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions underÉanyÉFederal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.""

In the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Booth argued that the term ""prison conditions"" in the PLRA referred to the general physical conditions of the prison that affected all prisoners, and not isolated acts that affected only one individual prisoner. So the PLRA does not apply to his ""excessive force"" action, Booth said.

He also stated that since, by law, prisoners are not allowed to get monetary damages, it is futile to pursue his cause in the prison grievance system. Monetary relief is not one of the administrative remedies ""as are available,"" according to the federal statute, Booth argued.

On Sept. 27, 1999, a divided 3rd Circuit panel affirmed, holding that because Booth failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (rather than those he believed would be effective) before filing suit, the District Court appropriately dismissed his action without prejudice.

In his opinion, Chief Judge Edward R. Becker cited a different section of the PLRA to clarify the meaning of the term ""prison conditions,"" which Booth was challenging.

""The term Ôcivil action with respect to prison conditions means any civil proceeding arising under Federal law with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison, but does not include habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison,"" Becker wrote.

The alleged assaults on Booth were the ""effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison,"" according to Becker.

In dissent, Judge John T. Noonan wrote that Booths excessive force action does not fall within the parameters of ""prison conditions"" in the PLRA.

""A punch in the jaw is not Ôprison conditions,"" Noonan argued. ""A punch in the jaw is an act. That Churners [the defendant] alleged blow took place in a prison does not make it Ôprison conditions.""

Noonan also rejected the parallel the majority drew between the terms ""prison conditions"" and ""effects of actions by government officials.""

""What are actions by government officials that impact the lives of prisoners and appropriately fit within the framework of conditions?"" Noonan asked. ""[They are] how warm the food is, how bright the lights are, whether there are electric lights in each cell, whether the prisoners hair cut is by licensed barbersÉ.""

According to Noonan, Congress framed the PLRA statute to limit the number of suits that prisoners brought. However, the language could not be used to include isolated acts of battery.

""A guard hits you on the mouth,"" Noonan wrote. ""Would you report the blow by saying, ÔA government official has taken an action having an effect on my life? Why should we attribute such circuitousness to Congress?""

The majority also rejected Booths argument regarding the futility of pursuing his grievance in the prison system, which does not allow prisoners to claim financial damages. Basing its decision on the 3rd Circuit's recent decision in Nyhuis v. Reno, the majority concluded that the PLRA required the exhaustion of administrative remedies ""mandatory — whether or not they provide the inmate-plaintiff with the relief he says he desired in federal action.""

In Booth's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, Booth's attorney Nancy Winkelman argued that the federal circuits are in conflict over the issue of mandatory exhaustion of administrative remedies.

""Three courts of appeals, drawing on [the Supreme] Courts decision in McCarthy v. Madigan, hold that such inevitable Ôfutile exhaustion is unnecessary,"" Winkelman wrote. ""In direct conflict with these decisions, four courts of appeals — including the 3rd Circuit in this case — hold that a prisoner must undertake such 'exhaustion' even where the administrative processes cannot possibly give the prisoner the monetary damages that he/she seeks.""

In the opposition to the petition, John G. Knorr, attorney for the defendants, wrote that Booth did not file an action seeking only monetary damages, but also a variety of non-monetary relief. They include improvement of the prison library, an operation on his shoulder and a contempt fine of the prison officials. His action is a ""mixed"" claims action, according to Knorr.

""The Courts of Appeals are in substantial agreement that prisoners who present Ômixed claims for monetary and non-monetary relief must first exhaust their administrative remedies,"" Knorr wrote.

In reply, Winkelman argued that this argument is false because the issue in front of Supreme Court deals solely with monetary damages.

""[The] contention that this is a Ômixed case is factually erroneous because Mr. Booths claims for injunctive relief are moot, in view of his transfer from the prison, at which he allegedly was beaten, to another prison,"" Winkelman wrote. ""Only his claims for money damages remained viable in the Court of Appeals, and only his claims for money damages remain viable now.""

On Oct. 30, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, and on May 29, 2001, a unanimous Court affirmed, holding that Booth must exhaust the prison administrative process in seeking money damages even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.

Justice David Souter wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court.