Baraga Correctional Facility
Della Hitt
Prisoners in the United States have to navigate a maze of legal and administrative procedures to seek relief while incarcerated. In 2021, Kyle Brandon Richards, an inmate at Michigan’s Baraga Correctional Facility, sued Thomas Perttu, a Resident Unit Manager of the correctional facility, for sexual harassment and retaliation. [1] In a 2022 bench trial, the magistrate judge ruled in favor of Perttu, who had argued that Richards had failed to exhaust administrative remedies within the prison grievance system as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). [2] The PLRA was enacted to prevent frivolous lawsuits brought forth by incarcerated individuals from overwhelming the courts. [3] It includes several provisions that impede incarcerated individuals’ ability to take formal legal action against carceral institutions, with this case focusing on its provision regarding administrative remedies. [4] Perttu v. Richards also raises questions about the scope of the PLRA concerning Seventh Amendment protections. [5]
The PLRA states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” [6] Richards argued that Perttu had thwarted his efforts to handle the matter under the prison grievance structure, therefore exempting him from the PLRA exhaustive mandate. [7] However, the magistrate judge found that administrative remedies were generally available to Richards. [8] Richards appealed the district court decision, asserting that his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial supersedes the restrictions of the PLRA in this circumstance; he claimed that the disputed facts determining whether administrative remedies through the prison grievance structure had been exhausted are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim. [9] The Sixth Circuit reversed the Michigan district court’s opinion and held that prisoners have a right to a jury trial in these circumstances, [10] diverging from the Seventh Circuit holding that courts, not juries, determine whether a prisoner has exhausted administrative remedies, regardless of intertwined disputed facts. [11] The Supreme Court accepted Perttu’s writ of certiorari appealing the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. [12]
The Court expanded the power of the PLRA in Porter v. Nussle, which asserted that the use of excessive force or physical harm by prison officials is classified under “prison conditions” in the PLRA, and therefore, prisoners must bring forth complaints within the prison's administrative structure in cases of assault. [13] The decision meant that the use of excessive force did not present an exemption from the exhaustive requirement. [14] In Porter, Justice Ginsburg stated that the purpose of the PLRA was to “reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits.” [15] This ruling broadened the scope of internal resolution discretionary power and created the undue opportunity for prisons to protect themselves from liability through cosmetic compliance, in which institutions implement procedural safeguards, such as internal grievance systems, under the guise of protecting the rights of inmates while in practice benefitting the administration by continuing the subjugating status quo. [16]
In the magistrate judge’s opinion, Richards’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies in prison trumped consideration of the merits of Richards’s accusations. [17] Richards’s inability to bring his case before a jury displays how the PLRA isolates incarcerated individuals from constitutional protections by undermining the guarantees provided by the Seventh Amendment. The Seventh Amendment states that “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…” [18] However, the PLRA weakens this protection for incarcerated individuals. The Seventh Amendment places juries as constitutionally appointed fact finders in civil cases, but the PLRA provisions impede PLRA litigants from engaging in this process. [19]
Furthermore, with inmates expressing their fears over retaliation for coming forward, there have been questions surrounding the efficacy of these internal grievance systems. [20] In Richards v. Perttu, Richards claimed that Perttu retaliated against him by thwarting his attempts at following administrative procedure. [21] The mandatory conditions for a suit must be met to retain Seventh Amendment protections. [22] Mandatory conditions in cases brought forth by incarcerated individuals include exhausting administrative measures under the PLRA. [23] The PLRA seeks to minimize frivolous lawsuits, “when there can be no dispute (or question) that it has no basis in either law or fact.” [24] However, this implies that cases such as Richard’s are frivolous and do not necessitate a jury trial, despite his claims that Perttu engaged in acts “ripping up the grievances or otherwise destroying them,” threatening to kill him, and placing him in administrative segregation to hinder his ability to engage with the internal grievance system of the Baraga Correctional Facility. [25] In such situations, is the suit by PLRA litigants still considered frivolous? And, who is best equipped to determine this? The Seventh Amendment and the PLRA differ in their responses.
The impending decision in Perttu v. Richards will help elucidate how incarcerated individuals are expected to navigate claims and complaints against the institutional powers that govern every facet of their lives. The balance of power between incarcerated and correctional officers is weighted exceedingly toward the latter. However, a narrowly tailored ruling with Richards would mean that suits like his—specifically noting disputes of exhaustion under the PLRA when intertwined with the underlying merits of the case—would be resolved in front of a jury, not by the administrative process of the institution violating the prisoner’s civil rights. The ruling will also set a precedent concerning the jurisdictional boundaries of the PLRA in relation to the Seventh Amendment; in this regard, the civil liberties afforded to criminalized citizens will be further clarified.
Brief for Defendant-Appellee Perttu at 4, Richards v. Perttu, No 22-1298 (6th Cir. September 27, 2023).
Richards v. Perttu, No. 22-1298, slip op. at 3 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2024).
Melissa Benerofe, “Collaterally Attacking the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s Application to Meritorious Prisoner Civil Litigation,” Fordham Law Review 90, no. 1 (2021): 153, https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol90/iss1/4/.
Richards, slip op. at 4.
Brief for Defendant-Appellee Perttu at 3, Richards.
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321.
Report and Recommendation at 9, Richards v. Perttu, Case 2:20-cv-00076-HYJ-MV (E.D. Mich. July 29, 2021).
R. & R. at 10–11, Richards.
Richards, slip op. at 5.
Richards, slip op. at 14.
Richards, slip op. at 10.
Perttu v. Richards, No. 23-1324 (6th Cir. March 19, 2024), cert granted, 603 U.S. ___ (U.S. Oct. 4, 2024).
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 526–527 (2002).
Porter, 534 U.S. 516 (2002).
Porter at 524.
Van Swearingen, “Imprisoning Rights: The Failure of Negotiated Governance in the Prison Inmate Grievance Process,” California Law Review 96, no.5 (2008): 1354, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254558021_Imprisoning_Rights_The_Failure_of_Negotiated_Governance_in_the_Prison_Inmate_Grievance_Process.
R. & R. at 5, Richards.
U.S. Const. amend. VII.
Brief of the Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent at 9–10, Perttu v. Richards, no. 23-1324 (U.S. January 21, 2025).
Kelan Lyons, “Report Finds Some Incarcerated People Don’t Trust NC’s Prison Grievance System,” Carolina Public Press, March 29, 2023, https://carolinapublicpress.org/59715/report-some-incarcerated-people-dont-trust-ncs-prison-grievance-system/.
Brief in Opposition, Perttu v. Richards, no. 23-1324 (U.S. August 19, 2024).
Sasha Prakir, Samantha Wood, and Jae Choi, “Perttu v. Richards,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/23-1324.
A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual, 13th ed. (New York: Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2024): 405, https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2025/01/Chapter-14-PLRA-.pdf.
Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual, 378.
Richards, slip op. at 2.