FanFan v. M.C.C.

Background

Fanfan initiated the action on January 25, 2021. The court construed the original complaint as asserting a claim under a federal constitutional remedy and a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It dismissed Fanfan’s claims against M.C.C. and the Bureau of Prisons. The court later treated Fanfan’s letter together with the original complaint as an amended complaint and directed Defendants Joaquin and Kaufman to answer.

Joaquin later sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Fanfan had not exhausted the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative remedies before filing suit. Joaquin submitted materials outside the pleadings concerning Fanfan’s grievance efforts. The court therefore converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment on administrative exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, allowing both sides an opportunity to submit additional evidence and briefing. No additional briefing was filed.

Exhaustion Requirement

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The Bureau of Prisons’ process has four stages: informal resolution using a BP-8, a formal request to the warden using a BP-9, an appeal to the regional director using a BP-10, and a final appeal to the Bureau of Prisons’ central office using a BP-11. The appeal is not considered fully exhausted until the central office considers it.

The court found that Joaquin provided sufficient evidence that Fanfan had not exhausted the process before filing this action. Bureau of Prisons records showed that Fanfan did not submit a BP-8 relating to his jaw treatment, although he submitted a BP-9. The administrative remedy coordinator returned that BP-9 because Fanfan had not attempted informal resolution or provided the required evidence of doing so, and because he did not request a remedy.

Fanfan stated that he submitted BP-8, BP-9, and BP-10 forms but did not receive responses. The court credited that assertion for purposes of the motion but found that, even accepting it, Fanfan had gone no farther than the BP-10 stage. He still had to submit a BP-11.

Unavailable Remedies and Later Efforts

The court explained that exhaustion may be excused only when administrative remedies are unavailable. It identified three examples: a process that is effectively a dead end, a process too unclear to use, or prison officials’ interference through manipulation, misrepresentation, or intimidation.

Fanfan accused M.C.C. officials of shredding unanswered BP-8 and BP-9 forms. The court assumed those allegations were true for purposes of the motion but found that Fanfan did not explain how they prevented him from filing a BP-11. The court noted that an inmate may treat a lack of response to a BP-10 as a denial and proceed to the next level. It also found that Fanfan’s difficulty accessing a law library or computer did not establish that the process was unavailable.

Fanfan’s later efforts also did not satisfy the requirement. He submitted administrative requests in 2022, including a BP-9 and BP-10, after filing this case. The court held that these efforts could not cure the failure to exhaust before the action began. It stated that Fanfan undisputedly had not filed a BP-11 before January 25, 2021.

Ruling

The court GRANTED Defendant Joaquin’s motion for summary judgment because Fanfan failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the action. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Fanfan, close the motion at Docket No. 36, and close the case.