NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards

County Nexus

Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.  

Background

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which was enacted in response to over 40,000 inmate-initiated cases clogging federal courts, prisoners must try and resolve their complaint through the prison’s grievance structure, exhausting all available administrative procedures. Kyle Richards, an inmate at the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) filed a complaint in court that Thomas Perttu, a Residential Unit Manager (RUM) employed by MDOC, retaliated against inmates and destroyed their property, therefore violating their First, Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights.  

Ordinarily, the PLRA constrains Richards’ ability to go to court, but Richards is arguing that he has the right to go to court and obtain a jury under the Seventh Amendment since facts determining whether he exhausted available administrative remedies are intertwined with the merits of the case. The Sixth Circuit agreed with Richards, finding that the inmate’s Seventh Amendment rights are superior to the PLRA and a federal jury is appropriate whereas the Seventh Circuit held a conflicting opinion, finding that inmates have no right to a jury to determine whether they exhausted administrative remedies regardless of whether the exhaustion is intertwined with the merits of the case. Perttu cited the circuit split in petition for cert. and argues that the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation undermines Congressional intent and that “threshold issues” remedies do not implicate the Seventh Amendment.  

NACo Advocacy

Stay tuned for a Local Government Legal Center amicus brief in support of the petitioner, Perttu, which will argue the Sixth Circuit’s ruling should be reversed based on the significant cost it could place on county governments as we support 91 percent of all local jails and the congressional intent of the PLRA to shield state and local governments from frivolous lawsuits.

Current Status

On June 18, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s holding that under the Seventh Amendment inmates are entitled to a jury trial to determine the exhaustion of remedies under the PLRA when the issue at hand is intertwined with the merits of a claim that necessitates a jury trial. While counties can continue to utilize the PLRA to seek dismissal of federal court proceedings, legal claims brought by an inmate could require a jury to resolve whether all potential remedies have been exhausted before counties can invoke the PLRA. This ruling is in opposition to what NACo advocated for in our amicus brief and as a result, counties could be subject to increased lawsuits initiated by inmates leading to increased costs related to the defense of prison litigation.