Hardin v. Hunt

In December 2019, while incarcerated at Tabor Correctional Institution, Charlie Hardin was cornered. A corrections officer had given other prisoners information on Mr. Hardin that put him at immediate risk of attack. Three gangmembers surrounded Mr. Hardin and attacked him with a knife.

Not only did prison officials do nothing to help Mr. Hardin, but they then put him in solitary confinement for trying to defend himself, keeping him there on and off for months. And while Mr. Hardin remained in segregation, prison officials continued to rile up the general population against him, spreading a rumor that Mr. Hardin had been the one to stab his assailant.

In response to this ordeal, Mr. Hardin sought some form of relief. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, incarcerated plaintiffs cannot sue for constitutional violations in federal court without first exhausting administrative remedies. When Mr. Hardin first filed a complaint in federal court based off these facts against one set of defendants, he had not yet completely exhausted administrative remedies. But, by the time Mr. Hardin amended his complaint to bring new claims against new defendants based on these facts, he had completed the prison’s internal review process. Nonetheless, the district court dismissed his amended complaint, and the new claims therein, for failure to exhaust.

Representing Mr. Hardin on appeal, we argue that under the text of the PLRA and the normal operation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Hardin satisfied the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. In doing so, we point out to the court that it serves no one to do what the Defendants in this case ask – which is to dismiss Mr. Hardin’s case and require him to refile the exact same lawsuit. Imposing such a formalism would hit incarcerated plaintiffs particularly hard, potentially forcing them to pay two filing fees for the price of one case. And the law firm of Patterson Belknap filed an amicus brief explaining the incredible burden that such fees have on incarcerated plaintiffs.

We are hopeful that the Fourth Circuit will reverse and allow Mr. Hardin to have his case heard on the merits.