Rhodes v. Ford

Background

Kavin Maurice Rhodes, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison officials failed to protect him and retaliated against him for protected conduct, including filing complaints, appeals, and a federal petition concerning his detention. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on administrative exhaustion—the requirement that a prisoner complete available prison grievance procedures before filing suit over prison conditions.

In an earlier order, the court found that several grievances were not exhausted. It also found that administrative remedies were unavailable for three grievances because of a lengthy delay in receiving a response at the third level of review. Those three grievances were therefore treated as exhausted, but the court ordered further briefing because it was unclear which of Rhodes’s ten claims they covered.

Analysis

The court reviewed grievances PBSP-20-00187, PBSP-20-00452, and PBSP-20-00604.

The first grievance exhausted part of claim two: the allegation that Ford and Buckhorn attempted to pressure Rhodes to withdraw a prior grievance by offering food to gang-member inmates to intimidate him. The grievance did not exhaust additional allegations that Rhodes added for the first time at the second level of review, including allegations about a false rules-violation report, removing him from his cell, telling other prisoners that he was the reason for searches, and manipulating a computer system to place him at a particular location. The court held that adding new allegations at a later appeal level did not satisfy the applicable grievance procedures.

The second grievance included allegations that Buckhorn directed other inmates to attack Rhodes and attempted to move him to another facility in retaliation. The court stated that, to the extent this referred to the same retaliation allegation in claim two, that portion had already been found properly exhausted. The grievance did not exhaust other claims against Buckhorn. It also did not sufficiently alert prison officials to the allegations in claim five concerning Markel’s handling of a classification matter and an appeal. The court found that a general statement that Markel lied was too vague, and that other allegations raised for the first time at the second level were also not properly exhausted.

The third grievance exhausted the other part of claim two: the allegation that Ford filed a false rules-violation report in retaliation for an earlier grievance. The court found that minor differences between the grievance and the complaint did not prevent the claim from proceeding when the filings were read liberally. No other claims were exhausted by that grievance.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The action continues on claim two against Ford and Buckhorn based on the allegations that they tried to coerce Rhodes into withdrawing a prior grievance by offering food to gang-member inmates to intimidate him, and that Ford issued a false rules-violation report in retaliation. All other claims and defendants were dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted.

The court granted Rhodes’s motion for an extension and reviewed his supplemental filing. It also established procedures for a future dispositive motion, including required factual documentation, service of notices, briefing deadlines, and discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton further directed Rhodes to serve communications on the defendants and warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.