Bettencourt v. Bryant

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires prisoners to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. In other words, if a prison has its own internal grievance procedure, prisoners must follow that procedure in full before they file a lawsuit. However, the Supreme Court has held that the PLRA contains one exception to this exhaustion rule; prisoners only need to exhaust remedies that are “available.” In this case, we argued administrative remedies were never “available” to Mr. Bettencourt, and so he was not subject to the exhaustion requirement.

While incarcerated at Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta, Georgia, Mr. Bettencourt experienced suicidal thoughts. After a suicide attempt, he was placed in the Acute Crisis Unit (ACU) at his facility. Upon his arrival at the ACU, he faced horrific conditions; his cell was smeared with feces and blood. His window did not seal properly and the heat did not work, so Mr. Bettencourt also faced extreme cold temperatures; it was so cold some nights that Mr. Bettencourt could see his breath. Mr. Bettencourt’s clothes were taken, and he was not even given a smock to cover himself.

Mr. Bettencourt attempted to file prison grievances regarding the conditions he faced. But for the full month he was in the ACU, he was on a “sharps restriction,” meaning he was forbidden from using a pen or other writing implement to fill out the form. For another month after he was released from the ACU, he was barred from filing a grievance because he had two pending grievances. When he was finally able to file his grievance, it was rejected as untimely.

Mr. Bettencourt—acting pro se, or without counsel—then filed this lawsuit in federal court. The district court dismissed the case under the PLRA exhaustion requirement, finding that Mr. Bettencourt failed to exhaust “available” administrative remedies.

The MacArthur Justice Center represents Mr. Bettencourt on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where we argue that remedies were not “available” to Mr. Bettencourt. We took on this case to ensure that Mr. Bettencourt, and others like him, are not improperly denied their day in court when a prison’s own obstacles prevent them from seeking administrative relief.