# Goodwin v. Hawk-Sawyer

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · July 21, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10411961

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 21, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10411961

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that pro se parties “cannot flout procedural rules—they must abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants”
- holding that the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA applies to grievance procedures “regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOEL WILLIAM GOODWIN, :
Plaintiff :
: No. 1:20-cv-606
v. :
: (Judge Rambo)
CAPTAIN HALL, et al., :
Defendants :

MEMORANDUM
On April 13, 2020, pro se Plaintiff Joel William Goodwin (“Goodwin”),
who was formerly incarcerated at the Allenwood United States Penitentiary
(“USP-Allenwood”), initiated the above-captioned case by filing a complaint
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971) against various defendants employed by USP-Allenwood and
the United States Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). (Doc. No. 1.) On June 19, 2020, the
court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it was illegible and
granted Goodwin leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 10.) Goodwin
timely filed an amended complaint on July 15, 2020. (Doc. No. 11.)
Defendants Bennett-Meehan, Hall, Moore, Kimble, Powell, Jones, and
Schreck (“Moving Defendants”) moved to dismiss the complaint, or, alternatively,
for summary judgment on September 7, 2021. (Doc. No. 39.) Defendants Lin,
“Associate Warden,” and “Unknown SIS Officer” have not been served with
process and accordingly have not responded to the complaint. Moving Defendants
argue, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to
filing suit. (Doc. No. 41.) In an order entered February 6, 2022, the court

informed the parties that, pursuant to Paladino v. Newsome, 885 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.
2018), it would consider the exhaustion issue in the context of summary judgment,
and by doing so, would consider matters outside the pleadings in its role as

factfinder. (Doc. No. 33.) The court directed Goodwin to file a response to the
motion for summary judgment that addressed the issue of exhaustion. (Id.)
Goodwin has not responded to the Moving Defendants’ motion or the court’s
order, and the motion is now ripe for the court’s disposition. For the reasons that

follow, the motion will be granted, and the court will additionally sua sponte grant
summary judgment to the non-moving Defendants.
I. BACKGROUND

Goodwin’s amended complaint alleges several incidents that occurred
during his incarceration at USP-Allenwood. On January 2, 2020, Defendant Jones
allegedly interfered with mail that Goodwin was attempting to send to the
President. (Doc. No. 11 at 1.) Defendant Powell allegedly assisted Jones in this

interference and repeatedly and sarcastically asked Goodwin whether he was going
to send mail to the President whenever Goodwin requested records. (Id. at 2.)
On January 8, 2020, Defendant Hall allegedly told Goodwin that he needed

to go to the prison yard. (Id. at 1). Goodwin allegedly had to “walk Muslim
instead [of] Catholic” for “protection from white inmates” despite the fact that he
“was Catholic on previous 2 yards.” (Id.)

On some unspecified date in March 2020, the amended complaint alleges
that Defendant Moore screamed at Goodwin in front of other inmates. (Id.) The
amended complaint further alleges that Goodwin requested a transfer to a prison

closer to his home pursuant to the First Step Act but was denied such relief by
BOP officials. (Id. at 2.) Goodwin also allegedly requested a “CPAP,”1 but
Defendant Bennett-Meehan allegedly denied this request because she “want[ed]
another sleep study.” (Id.)

Defendant Jones allegedly tried to give Goodwin razors on March 27, 2020,
March 28, 2020, and March 29, 2020, despite the fact that Goodwin was allegedly
on razor restriction at the time. (Id. at 3.) He also allegedly took Goodwin’s tuna

off his food tray on the first two of these days and never gave the tuna back to
Goodwin. (Id.) The amended complaint further alleges that Defendant Shrake
kicked and banged on Goodwin’s cell all night on some unspecified date and
“threw slice[d] cheese” under the door of the cell all night. (Id.) Shrake also

allegedly told Goodwin to “go ahead and hang [him]self” and that prison staff
would not run in to stop him and asked Goodwin if he wanted razors. (Id.)

1 The amended complaint does not define this term.
The amended complaint alleges that an unnamed officer “repeatedly
slammed” a gate right outside of Goodwin’s cell on March 29, 2020. (Id.) Prison

staff allegedly refused to give Goodwin soap and supplies. (Id.) An unnamed
member of the prison staff also allegedly told Goodwin that he did not believe that
“white boys pulled a knife on [Goodwin]” and refused to investigate such an

incident because it would be a “waste of time.” (Id.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires the court to render summary
judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). “[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion

for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of
material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A
disputed fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the
outcome of the case under applicable substantive law. Id. at 248; Gray v. York

Newspapers, Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1078 (3d Cir. 1992). An issue of material fact is
“genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257; Brenner v. Local 514, United

Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1287-88 (3d Cir. 1991).
When determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the court
must view the facts and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1993); Clement v. Consol. Rail Corp., 963
F.2d 599, 600 (3d Cir. 1992); White v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 862 F.2d 56, 59
(3d Cir. 1988). To avoid summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party may

not rest on the allegations of his or her pleadings. When the party seeking
summary judgment satisfies its burden under Rule 56 of identifying evidence
which demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving
party is required to go beyond his pleadings with affidavits, depositions, answers to

interrogatories or the like to demonstrate specific material facts which give rise to a
genuine issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). The party
opposing the motion “must do more than simply show that there is some

metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). When Rule 56 shifts the burden of
production to the nonmoving party, that party must produce evidence to show the
existence of every element essential to its case which it bears the burden of proving

at trial, for “a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex,
477 U.S. at 323; see also Harter v. G.A.F. Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 851 (3d Cir. 1992).
In determining whether an issue of material fact exists, the court must
consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. White,

826 F.2d at 59. In doing so, the court must accept the nonmovant’s allegations as
true and resolve any conflicts in his favor. Id. (citations omitted). However, a
party opposing a summary judgment motion must comply with Local Rule 56.1,

which specifically directs the oppositional party to submit a “statement of the
material facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs set forth in the statement
required [to be filed by the movant], as to which it is contended that there exists a
genuine issue to be tried.” If the nonmovant fails to do so, “[a]ll material facts set

forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to
be admitted.” M.D. Pa. L.R. 56.1. A party cannot evade these litigation
responsibilities simply by citing the fact that he is a pro se litigant. These rules

apply with equal force to all parties. See Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704
F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (noting that pro se parties “cannot flout procedural
rules—they must abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants”).
III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS2
Goodwin was committed to BOP custody on March 21, 2011 and was

incarcerated in USP-Allenwood from October 15, 2019 to February 1, 2021. (Doc.
No. 40 ¶ 1.) He initiated this lawsuit while he was incarcerated in USP-
Allenwood. (Id. ¶ 2.) The BOP keeps a log of all administrative remedy

submissions by inmates through an automated system known as SENTRY. (Id. ¶
3.) SENTRY records reflect that Goodwin filed four administrative remedy
requests between his entry into USP-Allenwood on October 15, 2019 and the date
he filed the complaint that initiated this case. (Id. ¶ 8.) Three of those requests

were rejected by the BOP’s regional director and were not appealed by Goodwin.
(Id. ¶¶ 9-17.) Goodwin appealed the fourth request through all stages of

2 The Local Rules provide that in addition to the requirement that a party file a brief in
opposition to the moving party’s brief in support of its motion, “[t]he papers opposing a motion
for summary judgment shall include a separate, short and concise statement of material facts
responding to the numbered paragraphs set forth in the statement [of material facts filed by the
moving party] . . . as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried.” See
M.D. Pa. L.R. 56. 1. The Rule further requires the inclusion of references to the parts of the
record that support the statements. See id. Finally, the Rule states that the statement of material
facts required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless
controverted by the statement required to be served by the opposing party. See id. Unless
otherwise noted, the background herein is derived from Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement of facts.
(Doc. No. 49.) Goodwin has not filed a responsive statement to Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement
of facts. Accordingly, unless otherwise noted, the court deems the facts set forth by Defendants
to be undisputed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); M.D. Pa. L.R. 56.1; United States v. Alberto, No.
3:18-cv-1014, 2020 WL 730316, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2020) (concluding that the “[f]ailure to
file this [responsive statement of material facts] results in admission of the moving party’s
statement of facts”). Furthermore, because the court ultimately concludes that Goodwin failed to
exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit, the court’s statement of material facts will
only address facts pertaining to the issue of exhaustion.
administrative review, but the request was an appeal from a disciplinary hearing
decision and did not pertain to the facts of this case. (Id. ¶¶ 18-23.) Goodwin

never submitted any administrative remedy requests regarding the facts that give
rise to the instant case. (Id. ¶ 24.)
IV. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner must
pursue all available avenues of relief through the applicable grievance system
before initiating a federal civil rights action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v.
Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001) (“[A]n inmate must exhaust irrespective of

the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.”). Section
1997e provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to
prison conditions under [S]ection 1983 of this title, or any other [f]ederal law, by a

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
The exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Williams v. Beard, 482 F.3d 637, 639
(3d Cir. 2007); see also Booth, 532 U.S. at 742 (holding that the exhaustion

requirement of the PLRA applies to grievance procedures “regardless of the relief
offered through administrative procedures”).
The Third Circuit has further provided that there is no futility exception to

Section 1997e’s exhaustion requirement. Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 75-76 (3d
Cir. 2000). Courts have typically required across-the-board exhaustion by inmates
seeking to pursue claims in federal court. Id. Additionally, courts have interpreted

this exhaustion requirement as including a procedural default component, holding
that inmates must fully satisfy the administrative requirements of the inmate
grievance process before proceeding with a claim in federal court. See Spruill v.

Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004); see also Oriakhi v. United States, 165 F.
App’x 991, 993 (3d Cir. 2006) (providing that “there appears to be unanimous
circuit court consensus that a prisoner may not fulfill the PLRA’s exhaustion
requirement by exhausting administrative remedies after the filing of the complaint

in federal court”). Courts have also concluded that inmates who fail to complete
the prison grievance process in a full and timely manner are barred from
subsequently litigating claims in federal court. See, e.g., Bolla v. Strickland, 304 F.

App’x 22 (3d Cir. 2008).
This broad rule favoring full exhaustion allows for a narrowly defined
exception; if the actions of prison officials directly caused the inmate’s procedural
default as to a grievance, the inmate will not be required to comply strictly with

this exhaustion requirement. See Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000).
However, courts also recognize a clear “reluctance to invoke equitable reasons to
excuse [an inmate’s] failure to exhaust as the statute requires.” Davis v.

Warman, 49 F. App’x 365, 368 (3d Cir. 2002). Thus, an inmate’s failure to
exhaust will be excused only “under certain limited circumstances,” Harris v.
Armstrong, 149 F. App’x 58, 59 (3d Cir. 2005), and an inmate may defeat a claim

of failure to exhaust only by showing “he was misled or that there was some
extraordinary reason he was prevented from complying with the statutory
mandate.” Warman, 49 F. App’x at 368.

In the absence of competent proof that an inmate was misled by corrections
officials, or some other extraordinary circumstances warranting a departure from
strict compliance with the exhaustion requirement, courts frequently reject inmate
requests for their failure to exhaust to be excused. An inmate, therefore, may not

excuse a failure to comply with these grievance procedures in a timely manner by
simply claiming that his efforts constituted “substantial compliance” with this
statutory exhaustion requirement. See Harris, 149 F. App’x at 59. Furthermore,

an inmate may not avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the
administrative policies were not clearly explained to him. See Warman, 49 F.
App’x at 368. Consequently, an inmate’s confusion does not, alone, excuse a
failure to exhaust. See Casey v. Smith, 71 F. App’x 916 (3d Cir. 2003); see also

Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established
that ‘ignorance of the law, even for an incarcerated pro se petitioner, generally
does not excuse prompt filing.’” (citations omitted)).
In certain circumstances, administrative remedies may be considered
unavailable to an inmate such that a failure to exhaust may be excused. Ross v.

Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016). The Ross Court noted “three kinds of circumstances
in which an administrative remedy, although officially on the books, is not capable
of use to obtain relief.” Id. at 643. First, an administrative procedure is not

available “when (despite what regulations or guidance materials may promise) it
operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to
provide any relief to aggrieved inmates.” Id. Second, a procedure is not available
when it is “so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use.” Id.

Finally, a procedure is unavailable when “prison administrators thwart inmates
from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination,
misinterpretation, or intimidation.” Id. at 644. However, “once the defendant has

established that the inmate failed to resort to administrative remedies, the onus falls
on the inmate to show that such remedies were unavailable to him.” Rinaldi v.
United States, 904 F.3d 257, 268 (3d Cir. 2018). To defeat a failure to exhaust
defense based on misrepresentations by prison staff, an inmate must show “(1) that

the misrepresentation is one which a reasonable inmate would be entitled to rely on
and sufficiently misleading to interfere with a reasonable inmate’s use of the
grievance process, and (2) that the inmate was actually misled by the

misrepresentation.” Hardy v. Shaikh, 959 F.3d 578, 588 (3d Cir. 2020).
The BOP has established a multi-tier system of administrative review that
must be exhausted prior to an inmate filing suit in federal court. Before seeking

formal review, an inmate must first attempt to resolve the matter informally by
presenting his complaint via an informal resolution attempt form, known as a BP-
8. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a). If informal resolution is unsuccessful, the inmate may

then present the issue to the warden via a request for administrative remedy,
referred to as a BP-9. Id. § 542.14. The deadline to complete the BP-8 and the
BP-9 is twenty days from the event giving rise to the inmate’s complaint. Id.
Generally, the warden must file a response to the BP-9 within twenty calendar

days. Id. § 542.18. The inmate may file a BP-10, a regional administrative
remedy appeal, to the appropriate regional director within twenty days of the
warden’s response if dissatisfied with the warden’s response. Id. § 542.15(a). If

the regional director’s response is not satisfactory, the inmate may file a central
office administrative remedy appeal, referred to as a BP-11, within thirty days of
the regional director’s response. Id. § 542.15(a). An inmate’s appeal to the central
office is the final administrative level of appeal in the BOP. Id. § 542.14(b).

In this case, the record reflects that Goodwin failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. Goodwin never submitted any administrative remedy
requests pertaining to the subject matter of this case, and the only administrative

remedy request that he appealed through all stages of administrative review during
his incarceration at USP-Allenwood pertained to a disciplinary ruling that is not at
issue in this case. (See Doc. No. 40 ¶¶ 8-24.) Plaintiff has also not advanced any

arguments that the administrative remedy system was unavailable to him or that
the court should otherwise excuse his failure to exhaust. Accordingly, the court
concludes that Moving Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on

Goodwin’s failure to exhaust. Having reached this conclusion, the court will not
address Defendants’ other summary judgment arguments.
The court will also sua sponte grant summary judgment in favor of non-
moving Defendants Lin, Associate Warden, and Unknown SIS Officer for

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Although a court must
ordinarily give notice that it intends to grant summary judgment in favor of a non-
moving party, the court may sua sponte grant summary judgment without advance

notice when there is a fully developed record, the party against whom summary
judgment is sought would not be prejudiced by the ruling, and the ruling is on a
purely legal issue. Gibson v. Mayor & Council of City of Wilmington, 355 F.3d
215, 224 (3d Cir. 2004). That is exactly the case here: the record is fully

developed on the issue of exhaustion, Goodwin is not prejudiced by the court
raising the issue sua sponte since the same result would inevitably follow if the
court gave advance notice, and the ruling is a purely legal question given that there

are no issues of material fact as to whether Goodwin exhausted administrative
remedies. Accordingly summary judgment will also be granted in favor of
Defendants Lin, Associate Warden, and Unknown SIS Officer.

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Moving Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. No. 39) will be granted and the court will sua sponte grant

summary judgment in favor of non-moving Defendants Lin, Associate Warden,
and Unknown SIS Officer. An appropriate order follows.
S/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: July 21, 2022

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10411961. Public record. Not legal advice.