Smallwood v. Williams

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff-prisoner’s action, alleging that defendants-prison officials violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to physical and sexual abuse, excessive force, and mistreatment at hands of prison employees. Basis of Dist. Ct.’s dismissal was belief that exhaustion requirement applied because plaintiff had failed to exhaust prison grievance procedures by first attempting to resolve dispute informally prior to filing grievance. While record supported finding that plaintiff had failed to follow said requirement prior to filing his grievance, Ct. of Appeals, in reversing Dist. Ct., found that exhaustion requirement may not apply to plaintiff, because there was contested factual dispute as to whether said prison grievance process was available to plaintiff, where there was some evidence of his low IQ and lack of access to anyone during relevant period to assist him in understanding/complying with grievance process. Moreover, record showed that plaintiff had attempted to file 21 other grievances, and not once had plaintiff successfully navigated grievance through exhaustion. As such, Dist. Ct. should have conducted prior to any dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit Peavy hearing to resolve contested issues regarding whether administrative remedies were available to plaintiff.