A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual Chapter 14 - Columbia Law School

disabilities, 270 illiteracy or lack of education, 271 inability to speak or write English, 272 or
youth. 273
A remedy may be unavailable because the prisoner has been transferred out of the
particular prison or jail system, 274 unless the system provides a way to pursue grievances
270. Kuhajda v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., No. 05-CV-3263, 2006 WL 1662941, at *1 (C.D. Ill. June 8,
2006) (unpublished) (holding that a prisoner who is hearing-impaired and has limited ability to read
and write, and who did not have the assistance of a sign language interpreter, raised a factual issue
concerning availability of remedies); see Elliott v. Monroe Corr. Complex, No. C06-0474RSL, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 5242, at *10–11 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2007) (unpublished) (dismissing for non-exhaustion
where plaintiff with cerebral palsy was provided with assistance and had filed numerous grievances,
though he had not actually exhausted any).
271. Langford v. Ifediora, No. 5:05CV00216WRW/HLJ, 2007 WL 1427423, at *3–4 (E.D. Ark.
May 11, 2007) (unpublished) (holding plaintiff’s age, deteriorating health, and lack of general
education, combined with failure to provide him assistance in preparing grievances, raised a factual
issue concerning the availability of the remedy to him); Kuhajda v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., No. 05-CV-3263,
2006 WL 1662941, at *1 (C.D. Ill. June 8, 2006) (unpublished) (stating hearing-impaired prisoner’s
limited ability to read and write, and lack of a sign language interpreter, raised a factual issue
concerning availability of remedies). In the unreported decision Davis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 131 F.
App’x 127, 128–29, (10th Cir. Apr. 18, 2005) (unpublished), the court rejected the argument that the
plaintiff’s educational deficiencies (he said he was a “slow learner and thinker” still working to obtain a
G.E.D.) should excuse his failure to exhaust, noting that his papers “did not describe insurmountable
barriers to his filing of grievances and did not show that prison officials had effectively foreclosed his
efforts.” See also Ramos v. Smith, No. 05-5278, 187 F. App’x 152, 154 (3d Cir. June 2, 2006)
(unpublished) (rejecting claim of illiteracy, since federal regulations require assistance to illiterate
prisoners, and he did not allege that he asked for such assistance); Georgacarakos v. Watts, 147 F.
App’x 12, 14–15 (10th Cir. Aug. 18, 2005) (unpublished) (ignoring litigant’s plea to appoint counsel if
his exhaustion presentation was inadequate, in light of his lack of “means and sophistication”).
272. Several courts have denied summary judgment to prison officials where a monolingual
Spanish-speaking plaintiff alleged he could not understand or follow the grievance procedures because
he could not get them, or get help with them, in Spanish. See Abel v. Pierson, No. 05-264-GPM, 2008
WL 509466, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2008) (unpublished); Ramos v. Rosevthal, No. 4:06cv3158, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37360, at *3 n.1 (D. Neb. May 17, 2007) (unpublished); Gonzalez v. Lantz, No. 3:03-cv-
2264 (SRU)(WIG), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14702, at *8–10 (D. Conn. July 20, 2005) (unpublished).
273. One appeals court has rejected the argument that a juvenile prisoner complaining of
excessive force should be excused from failure to use the grievance process in part because he was a
juvenile. Brock v. Kenyon County, Ky., No. 02-5442, 2004 WL 603929, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2004)
(unpublished); see also Minix v. Pazera, No. 1:04-CV-447 RM, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44824, at *12–13
(N.D. Ind. July 27, 2005) (holding that a juvenile’s mother’s repeated complaints to numerous officials
did not exhaust her son’s complaint of being beaten and raped). By contrast, in Lewis v. Gagne, 281 F.
Supp. 2d 429, 433–35 (N.D.N.Y. 2003), the court held that a juvenile detainee’s mother, who had
complained to facility staff and contacted an attorney, family court, and the state Child Abuse and
Maltreatment Register, and whose complaints were known to the facility director and agency counsel,
had made sufficient “reasonable efforts” to exhaust, without explicitly commenting on the juvenile
detainee’s own status or capacity to follow administrative procedures.
274. Rodriguez v. Westchester County Jail Corr. Dep’t, 372 F.3d 485, 488 (2d Cir. 2004);
Ammouri v. Adappt House, Inc., No. 05-3867, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47129, at *10–12 (E.D. Pa. June
12, 2008) (unpublished) (noting that plaintiff was repeatedly told he could not grieve matters from his
previous institution); Davis v. Kirk, No. H-06-2381, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91024, at *24–25 (S.D. Tex.
Dec. 11, 2007) (unpublished) (holding prisoner’s grievance appeal was moot on transfer); Thomas v.
Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, No. CV 07-0258-PHX-DGC (DKD), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79334,
at *9–10 (D. Ariz. Oct. 12, 2007) (unpublished) (declining to dismiss where the prisoner did not have
knowledge of the violation until after his release and the grievance policy did not provide for grievances
after release); Bradley v. Washington, 441 F. Supp. 2d 97, 102–03 (D.D.C. Aug. 2, 2006) (unpublished)
(holding D.C. remedies became unavailable upon prisoner’s transfer to federal medical facility, since
D.C. procedures say they apply to facilities under authority, jurisdiction, or contract with D.C.);
Barnard v. District of Columbia, 223 F. Supp. 2d 211, 214 (D.D.C. 2002) (unpublished) (holding that a
prisoner who was first hospitalized, then involved in hearings, then transferred during the 15 days he