Hank Richard Coronel v. Havard, et al.

In 2024, Hank Richard Coronel was summoned to a confidential interview room by a California prison sergeant to answer questions about alleged fights occurring in the prison. While in the confidential interview room, the sergeant was unsatisfied with Mr. Coronel’s answers and became angry. The sergeant threw Mr. Coronel to the ground, kicking and beating him. After the incident, the sergeant lied and told others that Mr. Coronel had attacked him.

Mr. Coronel filed a civil rights complaint in federal district court in California. But before any defendants even entered the case, the judge dismissed Mr. Coronel’s complaint at the screening stage under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

Under the PLRA, prisoner bringing civil rights suits must first “exhaust” available administrative remedies at the facility – e.g., by filing grievances with prison officials to address their concerns before going to court. But failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that defendants must raise. Under Supreme Court precedent, individuals don’t have to plead exhaustion in a complaint. Nonetheless, the district court dismissed Mr. Coronel’s complaint because, in the court’s view, he failed to plead facts that proved he exhausted administrative remedies. The court relied on Mr. Coronel’s answers to a form complaint, created by the court, that unlawfully solicits information from prisoners about this defense.

The court was wrong to require Mr. Coronel to plead information about exhaustion—and wrong again to dismiss his complaint for failure to exhaust. The MacArthur Justice Center represents Mr. Coronel on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to ensure that incarcerated individuals, like Mr. Coronel, have meaningful access to the courthouse and are not wrongfully tossed out of court.