Allen v. Shaman

Background

Jeremy James Allen sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by state officials. He alleged that medical providers Cheryl Piepho and Charles Brooks were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and committed medical malpractice while treating him during his incarceration at the Minnesota Correctional Facility-Faribault. Piepho and Brooks were the only remaining defendants when they sought summary judgment.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal claim about prison conditions. Allen did not file grievances during his incarceration. But he was released before he amended his complaint to add Piepho and Brooks, who had been identified to him after he served a subpoena seeking information about signatures in his medical records.

In June 2023, the court denied Piepho and Brooks’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded that the grievance requirement did not apply because Allen was no longer incarcerated when he first named them in the amended complaint. The court stated in this order that it continued to believe that earlier ruling was correct.

Request for an Immediate Appeal

Piepho and Brooks asked the court to amend its earlier order and certify a non-final ruling for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That procedure allows a district court to certify a legal question for possible immediate review when the question controls the case, there is substantial disagreement about it, and immediate review could materially advance the litigation. Allen did not oppose the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court identified the controlling question as whether an amended complaint filed after a plaintiff’s release from prison, adding newly identified defendants who are the only remaining defendants, creates a new operative complaint for deciding whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s grievance requirement applies.

The court found the question controlling because a ruling for Piepho and Brooks on the exhaustion issue would result in dismissal of the action. It also found substantial grounds for disagreement because there was no binding precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, different federal appellate courts had reached different conclusions, and courts within the District of Minnesota were divided. Finally, the court found that immediate review could materially advance the case because resolving the exhaustion question could end the litigation.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Defendants’ Motion to Amend Order of June 29, 2023 to Certify for Appeal. It CANCELED the November 29, 2023 hearing and AMENDED the June 29 order to certify the stated question under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court did not change its earlier summary-judgment ruling in this order.