FanFan v. M.C.C.

Background

Defendant Joaquin moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Joaquin submitted materials outside the pleadings concerning Plaintiff’s efforts to exhaust administrative remedies in 2020 and 2022.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an inmate generally must complete the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ four-step administrative-remedy process before pursuing a covered claim. That process involves informal resolution with staff, a written request to the warden, an appeal to the regional director, and a final appeal to the Bureau of Prisons’ central office. The court also noted that exhaustion may be excused when prison administrators make the process unavailable through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.

Conversion to Summary Judgment

Because Joaquin presented information outside the pleadings, the court ordered that the motion to dismiss would be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, limited to the issue of administrative exhaustion. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding a claim based on evidence when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. The court gave FanFan until August 5, 2022, to oppose the motion with no more than five double-spaced pages of briefing and evidence showing either that he completed the four-step process or that completion was excused. The court warned that allegations in the amended complaint alone would not be enough. It identified sworn witness statements and documents supported by sworn statements as acceptable forms of evidence.

Joaquin could submit additional evidence and briefing, also limited to five double-spaced pages, by August 16, 2022. The court stated that if FanFan did not oppose the motion, summary judgment would likely be granted and the case closed. The order itself did not grant or deny summary judgment.

Request for Counsel

FanFan moved for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer. The court denied that motion without prejudice. It explained that courts may request—but generally cannot compel—an attorney to volunteer in a civil case, and that such requests should be granted sparingly. The court concluded that Joaquin’s submissions and FanFan’s statements at a January 24, 2022, conference strongly suggested that FanFan had not exhausted available administrative remedies. For that reason, the court found that the amended complaint was not likely to be legally substantial enough to warrant counsel at that stage. FanFan could renew the request if the case survived until trial.

The Clerk was directed to mail the order to FanFan, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and to close the motion for counsel at Docket Number 54.