 |
| Channing Robinson-Holmes |
The June 18 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Perttu v. Richards represents a monumental victory for access to justice, especially for incarcerated individuals seeking redress for constitutional violations. The ruling underscores an essential principle: Questions of material fact and credibility that are closely connected to the heart of a case are the province of a jury, rather than a judge.
This decision marks a critical shift in the legal landscape for prisoners navigating the complex and often hostile grievance procedures under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, or PLRA.
The court's decision in the Perttu ruling sends a clear message: Federal courts cannot continue to deny incarcerated individuals a fair opportunity to pursue legal claims simply because of procedural obstacles. This ruling strengthens the ability of prisoners to hold institutions and officials accountable.
A System Rigged Against Prisoners
The PLRA, enacted in 1996, was designed to curtail frivolous lawsuits by prisoners, but in practice, it has created substantial barriers for those seeking justice.
The law mandates that incarcerated individuals must exhaust all administrative remedies before they can file a lawsuit. In theory, this is a way to ensure that claims are addressed at the institutional level, reducing the burden on the courts.
In practice, however, the grievance procedures under the PLRA are riddled with obstacles that make it nearly impossible for prisoners to navigate the system effectively. Grievances can be tossed out for trivial technicalities like missing a short filing deadline, using the wrong form or exceeding a word limit. Worse still, staff may intimidate prisoners into silence, retaliate against them for speaking up or even destroy grievance forms altogether — making it almost impossible to navigate the system in good faith.
Prison grievance processes are often intentionally opaque and designed to discourage inmates from filing complaints. From delayed responses to lost paperwork and unclear instructions, the obstacles can feel insurmountable.[1] And when grievances are rejected, it's not just a denial of justice; it can be a denial of basic constitutional rights.
In the context of Perttu v. Richards, the court addressed the issue of exhaustion of remedies, affirming that when a dispute regarding exhaustion intersects with the merits of the claim, a jury should decide on the issue. This is a critical step toward rectifying the systemic injustices that have long plagued the prison system.
The Court's Decision in Perttu v. Richards
The Supreme Court's decision in Perttu v. Richards addressed a critical question at the intersection of the PLRA and the Seventh Amendment: Who decides disputed factual issues regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies?
The case arose when Kyle Richards, an incarcerated individual, filed suit against corrections officer Thomas Perttu, alleging sexual harassment and First Amendment retaliation. Specifically, Richards claimed that Perttu threatened him, destroyed his grievance forms and placed him in segregation to prevent him from filing grievances. These actions, he argued, rendered the prison's grievance process unavailable under the PLRA, thus excusing his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
At the district court level, a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Richards was not credible. On that basis, the court dismissed the case for failure to exhaust grievance procedures. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that when disputed facts concerning exhaustion overlap with the merits of a claim, it entitles a party to a jury trial.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, affirmed. The majority reasoned that because the PLRA is silent on who decides exhaustion disputes, long-standing practice and the Seventh Amendment govern. Where factual disputes are inextricably intertwined with the merits of a claim carrying a jury-trial right, juries must decide them.
By affirming the right to a jury trial in cases where exhaustion is disputed, the court ensures that one of the most fundamental parts of our legal system, the right to a trial by jury, remains intact for those who have the least power to advocate for themselves. This decision is not just a win for prisoners; it is a win for the integrity of the justice system itself.
Implications for Other Prison-Related Cases
The Perttu v. Richards ruling could have significant implications for other ongoing cases involving the rights of incarcerated individuals. In Hogan v. Wayne County, the plaintiffs allege a sexually hostile environment and racial discrimination within the jail facilities of Wayne County, Michigan.[2] Recently, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered oral argument on the application in this case.
One of the central questions in Hogan is whether the PLRA applies to former detainees and under what circumstances claims may be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Perttu ruling provides a compelling framework for courts to consider the role of juries when exhaustion is contested and the facts remain in dispute.
If the Perttu ruling serves as a guide, Hogan could pave the way for more robust considerations of prisoners' ability to challenge unlawful conditions without being prematurely barred by procedural hurdles. The Perttu ruling could empower courts to more readily allow jury trials in cases where exhaustion of remedies is a key issue, ensuring that prisoners' constitutional rights are not circumvented by mere technicalities.
The implications of Perttu v. Richards extend far beyond the prison walls, offering important lessons for all legal practitioners about the fundamental tension between procedural efficiency and substantive justice. This decision reinforces a critical principle that resonates across all areas of civil litigation: When procedural requirements become so intertwined with the merits of a case that they essentially predetermine the outcome, courts must be vigilant in preserving constitutional protections.
For civil rights attorneys, the Perttu ruling provides a powerful precedent for challenging procedural dismissals that effectively deny clients their day in court. This principle can apply to employment discrimination cases where exhaustion of internal company procedures is disputed, to disability rights cases involving administrative appeals and to any litigation where procedural compliance questions overlap with substantive constitutional or statutory violations.
The decision also highlights the broader importance of jury trials as a democratic check on institutional power. By affirming that juries, not judges, should resolve closely contested factual disputes that determine case outcomes, the court recognizes that community judgment serves as a crucial counterbalance to potential judicial bias or institutional deference. This principle transcends prisoner litigation and applies to any case where individual plaintiffs face powerful institutional defendants.
Moreover, the Perttu ruling serves as a reminder that procedural rules, while necessary for court efficiency, should not become weapons used to silence legitimate grievances.
Legal practitioners across all practice areas should view this decision as validation for challenging procedural barriers that systematically disadvantage vulnerable clients. Whether representing prisoners, employees, patients or consumers, attorneys now have stronger grounds to argue that disputed procedural compliance issues warrant full adversarial proceedings, rather than truncated hearings that may favor institutional interests over individual rights.
Conclusion
The ruling in Perttu v. Richards is more than just a procedural victory — by reaffirming the right to a jury trial in cases where the exhaustion issue is intertwined with the merits of the claim, the Supreme Court has made a significant stride toward ensuring that the most vulnerable individuals in our society are not denied access to justice. As we continue to fight for the rights of prisoners, this ruling will serve as an important tool in challenging the barriers that prevent many from securing the justice they deserve.
Ultimately, the decision reaffirms the vital principle that no one, regardless of their circumstances, should be denied their day in court simply because of procedural obstacles. This victory is not just for prisoners, it is a victory for justice itself.
Channing Robinson-Holmes is a partner at Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
"Perspectives" is a regular feature written by guest authors on access to justice issues. To pitch article ideas, email expertanalysis@law360.com.
[1] Christopher Blackwell, The Prison Grievance System Is Broken and Unjust, Progressive (June 19, 2021), https://progressive.org/latest/prison-grievance-system-unjust-blackwell-210618/.
[2] Hogan v. Wayne County
, MSC: 167262, COA: 362259, Wayne CC: 20-016367-CZ.