Perttu v. Richards

LII note: The U.S Supreme Court has now decided Perttu v. Richards

Issues

In cases under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning whether they have exhausted alternative non-legal remedies when the facts required to prove exhaustion are connected to the merits of the claim?

Oral argument:
February 25, 2025
Court below:
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

This case concerns the right to a jury trial under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Specifically, the PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing suit. Kyle Richards argues that, when the facts needed to demonstrate exhaustion are the same facts which support the merits of his claim, the PLRA requires a jury trial to resolve these disputed facts. Richards asserts that allowing a judge to evaluate the facts of the exhaustion claim and dismiss his case would deprive him of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on the merits of the case, since the facts underpinning the merits and exhaustion are the same. Thomas Perttu counters that exhaustion is a threshold requirement which plaintiffs must meet before reaching a jury trial on the merits, and it is thus proper for a judge to evaluate exhaustion and gatekeep PLRA cases from reaching a jury. This case will affect litigation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, define exhaustion’s place as a doctrine of law or equity, and heavily impact the role of the jury in future disputes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.

Facts

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit on Constitutional rights claims. Several circuit courts have affirmed that “administrative exhaustion” requires prisoners to properly go through all steps that an agency holds out. In consideration of such requirement, the Supreme Court, in McCarthy v. Madigan and Jones v. Bock , has previously held that the exhaustion requirement promotes judicial efficiency, protects administrative authority, and allows prisons to screen and resolve complaints prior to involving the court system. In some exceptional circumstances, the court may consider administrative remedies unavailable or allow claims to proceed without requiring administrative exhaustion. These circumstances include situations where prison officials prove unwilling or unable to provide relief, prevent inmates from using the grievance process through deception or intimidation, or where the administrative systems are so “opaque” as to be impractical. Prison officials may raise lack of administrative exhaustion as an affirmative defense , which the Sixth Circuit has stated judges may rule on without a jury.

Kyle Brandon Richards (“ Richards”), an inmate at the Baraga Correctional Facility in Michigan, alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, and destruction of property in a case filed against Resident Unit Manager, Thomas Perttu. Richards alleges that Perttu prevented him from filing grievances related to Perttu's alleged sexual abuse by destroying Richards’s grievances. Additionally, Richards claims that Perttu threatened to kill him if he persisted in filing grievances and that Perttu wrongly put Richards in administrative segregation for doing so.

Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing that Richards had not exhausted administrative remedies. Richards also moved for summary judgment, raising Constitutional claims regarding his First and Eighth Amendment rights. Both parties’ motions were denied because they relied on questions of fact which the court had not yet determined. A magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the administrative exhaustion requirement and recommended that the district court find that Richards had not exhausted administrative remedies. The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case. Richards appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that under the Seventh Amendment, a jury, not a judge alone, should decide whether factual matters related both to administrative exhaustion and to the merits of the claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s ruling. Perttu petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 4, 2024.

Analysis

PROCEDURAL STATUS OF EXHAUSTION DOCTRINE

Perttu argues that exhaustion is a judicial procedure that falls outside the 7th Amendment’s jury trial requirement. Perttu asserts that judges are entitled to rule on certain questions before a trial ever makes it to a jury. Among these questions, Perttu contends, are threshold questions, such as subject-matter jurisdiction or summary judgement. Perttu argues that exhaustion is a threshold question since it must be resolved before addressing the merits of the case, and because dismissals for lack of exhaustion are without prejudice , allowing the case to be brought again when the requirement is met. Perttu contends that allowing judges to decide questions of exhaustion does not violate the 7 th amendment, since it only guarantees the right of a jury trial on the ultimate merits of a case after mandatory conditions for a suit are met.

Perttu also asserts that questions of exhaustion should instead be considered cases in equity , which do not require a jury trial. Perttu advocates the use of the Supreme Court’s two-part test for whether the 7 th Amendment requires a jury trial: first, determining whether the broader cause of action is one of law or equity (cases in law almost always receive a jury), and second, if the action is in equity, assessing whether the particular trial decision was subject to the jury trial right in 1791. Perttu contends that the second prong is not met, because exhaustion closely resembles an equitable issue, of the type not protected by the 7 th Amendment in 1791. While exhaustion did not exist in 1791, Perttu asserts, it has origins as an equitable doctrine. Additionally, continues Perttu, the closest analogous doctrines to exhaustion that existed in 1791, such as forum non conveniens , adequate remedy at law, and habeas corpus , are equitable in nature. .

Richards argues that the 7 th Amendment protects the right to have a jury try questions of exhaustion, and that questions of exhaustion are not of the type to be kept from the jury by a judge. As opposed to a threshold question, Richards asserts that exhaustion is instead a regular affirmative defense, along with other defenses that may be asserted at trial but require a jury to evaluate. Richards contends that the Supreme Court precedent has established that exhaustion is an affirmative defense. . Unlike threshold questions, argues Richards, exhaustion is not jurisdictional and thus does not need to be resolved at the outset of a case. Rather, like questions such as statute of limitations , exhaustion defenses can be submitted to the jury. Furthermore, Richards contends that even if exhaustion is regarded as a threshold issue, such issues like subject matter jurisdiction are also sometimes decided by juries when they are intertwined with factual determinations relating to the merits of the case.

Richards further argues that exhaustion is not an equitable defense and need not be disposed of before reaching a jury. Richards asserts that exhaustion arose as an administrative law doctrine over 100 years after the 7 th Amendment was drafted and was used in both law and equity. Also, Richards argues that unlike equity doctrines that are discretionary and flexible, the PLRA’s exhaustion elements are mandatory, closely resembling administrative law exhaustion rather than being left up to judges. Richards contends that, in addition to being used in both courts of law and equity, exhaustion does not fall within previously recognized equitable defenses in any prior cases. Richards argues that analogizing exhaustion to equitable defenses from 1791 is inaccurate, since unlike exhaustion, equitable defenses simply extinguish plaintiffs’ rights to equitable remedies, forcing them to seek a legal remedy, whereas exhaustion would defeat both Richards’ legal and equitable right to relief without being heard by a jury.

DISPOSITION INVOLVING INTERTWINED ISSUES OF LAW AND FACT

Perttu argues that policy considerations and Congressional intent weigh in favor of a determination that the 7 th Amendment does not preserve the right to a jury trial even when exhaustion questions are mixed with questions of fact regarding the merits. In particular, Perttu asserts that the original purpose of the PLRA was to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners and guarantee that the lawsuits which made it to federal courts were of high quality. Perttu argues that allowing an exhaustion question to go to a jury would defeat the purpose of the act: to prevent suits with questionable merits from reaching juries. Additionally, asserts Perttu, since judges regularly serve as gatekeepers and have familiarity with prisoner litigation, allowing them to filter out PLRA suits for exhaustion satisfies the goals of judicial efficiency.

Perttu further contends that, although Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover established a presumption in favor of jury trials in cases concerning the intertwining of law and equity, Beacon Theaters should not apply because its underlying policy concerns are not present. Perttu argues that the Court in Beacon Theaters was concerned that, if a cause in equity and in law were based on the same facts, a judge deciding the cause in equity first would bind the cause in law through preclusion , preventing the plaintiff from receiving a jury trial on the merits of the cause in law. However, contends Perttu, this concern does not apply here because exhaustion is a threshold matter decided before reaching the merits, avoiding any preclusive effect on future jury trials. Additionally, argues Perttu, unlike in Beacon Theaters , a judge’s determination on the exhaustion issue would not prevent a jury from considering the same underlying facts in a different way on the merits question.

Richards argues that Congressional intent and general prudential principles make the case that factual disputes intertwined with the merits are best suited to be handled by a jury. Richards argues that because Congress explicitly designated certain issues as threshold questions in PLRA cases, but omitted exhaustion, Congress specifically intended exhaustion to be an affirmative defense requiring jury evaluation rather than a threshold issue. Similarly, Richards asserts, Congress neglecting to codify exhaustion as discretionary and instead making it mandatory shows its intent to classify the doctrine as administrative, not equitable in nature. Additionally, adds Richards, when dealing with doubt regarding factual issues intertwined with merits, courts tend to give a strong presumption in favor of jury trials on issues of factfinding.

Richards argues that Beacon Theaters is the controlling precedent in this case, and that it compels the Court to rule in favor of a jury trial in issues of intertwined fact and law. In response to Perttu’s argument that Beacon Theaters ’ preclusion concern is not formally present here, Richards counters that dismissing a case on exhaustion still effectively prevents the jury from hearing the merits. Also, Richards argues that because prison grievance deadlines are exceedingly short, a dismissed case can never be brought again, since the deadline for exhausting alternative remedies will have passed, practically precluding the claim. In response to Perttu’s argument that a jury can reexamine underlying facts after an exhaustion determination, Richards argues that this will only be possible if the determination is in favor of the plaintiff; in cases such as his, where it is dismissed, he will have lost his jury right.

Discussion

JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY

The National Sheriffs’ Association and the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association (“Sheriffs’ Associations”) argue in support of Perttu, claiming that requiring a jury trial to determine whether a prisoner had exhausted administrative options would be unduly burdensome on municipal Sheriffs’ Offices. The Sheriffs’ Associations warn that this may result in a dramatic increase in litigation from disgruntled prisoners, because courts would not be able to dismiss cases for lack of administrative exhaustion without a jury trial. Similarly, International Municipal Lawyers Association and the National Association of Counties (“Municipal Lawyers”) assert that the PLRA was designed to curb frivolous litigation by prisoners. Further, Municipal lawyers worry that holding jury trials for more prisoner-filed cases, would be so costly that governments will be forced to cut vital services elsewhere. Lastly, the state of Ohio (“Ohio”), in support of Perttu, argues that prison litigation remains mostly non-meritorious, as prisoners continue to lose the vast majority of their cases.

In support of Richards, twenty-three law professors (“Law Professors”) pushed back on the idea of courts being flooded with non-meritorious litigation, arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s rule would apply only to a small subset of prison litigation cases. The overlap, Law Professors claim, is infrequent enough as to not overly burden court systems. The American Civil Liberties Union et al. (“ACLU”), also in support of Richards, argues that the Court need not be so concerned about frivolous claims because the court has an effective filtering method already, in which courts are permitted to screen all complaints filed by incarcerated individuals to determine whether the complaints have merit. The ACLU argues that the cases will rarely reach a jury because, even if the complaints survive screening, incarcerated plaintiffs must both argue the unavailability of administrative relief and submit sufficient evidence to support that argument for the case can survive summary judgment . Furthermore, the ACLU points out that several districts in New York have seen decreases both in prisoner complaint litigation and civil jury trials after implementing rules allowing jury trials for plaintiffs who allege they were not able to administratively exhaust their claims.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Regarding access to justice, Ohio argues that the Sixth Circuit’s rule does not increase access to justice because prisoners often file court cases with little regard for their merits. Municipal Lawyers agree, noting that many parties, including even governments, often settle even non-meritorious cases to avoid the high costs of litigation. Accordingly, Municipal Lawyers warn that the increase in issues requiring a jury trial would incentivize prisoners to file cases alleging lack of access to administrative remedies in the hopes of receiving a settlement. Furthermore, Municipal Lawyers insist that court clog delays other litigants’ access to justice and, if courts are overrun by frivolous complaints filed by prisoners, all litigants will suffer. The Sheriffs’ Association argues that permitting judges to decide factual issues related to whether plaintiffs exhausted administrative processes is not unlike other factual issues judges regularly decide. To do so, the Sheriffs' Association continues, is like determining whether there is subject matter jurisdiction, whether a party failed to state a claim, or any number of other “threshold issues” which might ultimately impact the case’s outcome but are in the domain of the judge’s power.

Conversely, a group of law professors (“Law Professors”), writing in support of Richards, submit that the Sixth Circuit rule protects plaintiffs bringing cases regarding serious governmental abuses of society’s most vulnerable individuals. Furthermore, Law Professors insist that prisoner abuse continues to be a problem in correctional institutions and warn that the worst abuses remain unaddressed because of corrections officers limiting prisoners’ access to the grievance system. The Cato Institute (“Cato”), also in support of Richards, argues that jury systems have been the way Americans hold their government accountable since the nation’s founding. Prison officials, Cato reasons, can easily manipulate the exhaustion requirement by designing and implementing the administrative systems that rarely holds officials accountable. Furthermore, Cato insists that trial by jury is crucial when the government is accused of violating individuals’ rights, particularly those of vulnerable individuals.

Conclusion

Sasha Prakir and Samantha Wood

Jae Choi

Additional Resources