Harvey v. Minnesota Department of Correction

Background

Nigeria Lee Harvey, who was incarcerated in Cell Hall D at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater, alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the Minnesota Department of Correction, several employees, and Centurion of Minnesota, L.L.C., a correctional healthcare provider, violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by inadequately addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Harvey also alleged that Centurion failed to train its employees.

After an inmate in Cell Hall D tested positive for COVID-19 in September 2020, inmates were placed on a modified lockdown. Harvey alleged that inmates who tested positive were not moved or isolated and remained in the same cell hall, where barred cell doors allowed air to flow freely. In October 2020, Harvey sent a letter to the Department of Correction’s Central Office seeking an investigation. He asserted that he could bypass the ordinary grievance process because of the danger to his health. The warden treated the letter as an attempt to begin the first step of the grievance process and advised Harvey to speak with health-services staff. The opinion states that there was no evidence Harvey later did so or filed a formal or informal grievance.

Report and Recommendation and Objections

A magistrate judge recommended granting Centurion’s request to join the state defendants’ summary-judgment motion, granting the state defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion, denying Harvey’s motion for a temporary restraining order, and alternatively granting in part and denying in part Centurion’s motion to dismiss. Harvey objected, arguing that prison officials had not informed him about the grievance procedures and that the summary-judgment motion violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Harvey was representing himself, the court construed his objections liberally.

Analysis

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. The Department of Correction’s procedure required an inmate first to seek resolution through written correspondence, called a “kite,” then file a formal grievance if necessary, and finally appeal to the Department of Correction’s Central Office.

The court concluded that this grievance procedure was available to Harvey. The exception permitting direct submission to the Central Office applied when an inmate had received threats or would face retaliation because of the grievance. The court held that COVID-19-related health and safety concerns were not the type of threats covered by that exception. It also found no evidence that Harvey experienced retaliation or another type of imminent danger exempting him from the ordinary process. Because Harvey had not exhausted available remedies, dismissal was mandatory.

Disposition

The court granted Centurion’s motion for joinder to the state defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Harvey’s amended complaint without prejudice as to all defendants for failure to exhaust state remedies. It denied all other motions as moot. The opinion’s final order, rather than separately granting the state defendants’ summary-judgment motion, dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust.