Simms v. Edwards

Dejwan Simms suffered a life-threatening medical crisis after two corrections officers ignored his urgent need for care so they could get off work on time. A district court tossed out his pro se Eighth Amendment lawsuit on the ground that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies—even though he filed a timely health care grievance with the prison, timely appealed its rejection, and complied with every instruction they gave him thereafter. The MacArthur Justice Center, along with our partners at Morrison Foerster, is fighting to overturn the district court’s erroneous decision and ensure that Mr. Simms and others like him receive their day in court.

While incarcerated at a prison in Northern California, Mr. Simms received nasal surgery at a nearby hospital. Although he was lethargic and disoriented following the surgery, two prison officers rushed Mr. Simms back to the prison—ignoring his complaints that he was having difficulty breathing, coughing up blood and experiencing severe pain—so that they could get off work on time. A doctor back at the prison determined he had blood in his lungs—a life-threatening complication from the surgery—and ordered that he be immediately returned to the hospital for treatment. Mr. Simms continues to suffer effects from the delay in medical treatment.

Pursuant to prison regulations, Mr. Simms filed a timely health care grievance, but it was rejected, without explanation, as being “outside the health care jurisdiction.” The rejection instructed him to either address his grievance through “appropriate custody channels” or “explain why he believed the issue was within health care jurisdiction.” But when Mr. Simms pursued the latter option—explaining that it was within health care’s jurisdiction because it raised an issue with his health care—his appeal was rejected for improperly bypassing the institutional level of review. Mr. Simms went back to the institutional level with his health care grievance, but it was rejected again as “outside the health care jurisdiction,” this time with a blank “custody grievance” form attached. Yet, when he attempted to submit it as a custody grievance, it was rejected as untimely because more than 30 days had passed since the incident.

Mr. Simms then sued the two officers under the Eighth Amendment, alleging that their actions amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court granted the officers summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Simms failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) because his custody grievance was untimely. Although the court acknowledged Mr. Simms’ multiple (and timely) efforts to submit his grievance through the health care grievance process, it concluded—without basis—that that was an “improper channel” and thus that those efforts did not excuse his failure to timely file via the custody process.

That was wrong. The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies only to remedies that are “available,” and the Supreme Court has recognized that opaque procedures and misleading instructions from prison officials can render remedies “unavailable.” Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016). Here, the prison’s regulations do not explain why Mr. Simms’ obviously health-care related grievance would not fall under “health care jurisdiction,” and its rejection notices repeatedly directed him to resubmit it via the health care process. It would be impossible for any prisoner to discern from these circumstances that his medical issue could not be filed as a health care grievance, but particularly for someone with a documented learning disability, as Mr. Simms had.

The MacArthur Justice Center, alongside co-counsel Morrison Foerster, represents Mr. Simms on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to ensure that he and other prisoners like him who make good-faith efforts to comply with inscrutably opaque prison grievance procedures are not improperly denied their day in court.