Perttu v. Richards
United States Supreme Court
June 18, 2025
JSH Attorney: Ashley Caballero-Daltrey
The United States Supreme Court this week determined that parties are entitled to a jury trial on exhaustion under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) when the exhaustion issue is intertwined with the merits of the claim.
The case arose from a claim by a prisoner that he was sexually assaulted by a prison employee. He was required to exhaust his remedies under the PLRA, but he alleged that when he tried to file the required forms, the employee destroyed them and threatened to kill him if he filed any further grievances.
The prisoner then brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, in relevant part, that his First Amendment rights were violated when he tried to file the grievances. The employee argued that the prisoner’s suit could not proceed because he failed to exhaust his remedies. The district court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the prisoner could exhaust his remedies and held an evidentiary hearing on that issue. The court concluded that he had failed to exhaust his remedies. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial because the issue was intertwined with the merits of the prisoner’s substantive claims. That decision conflicted with a Seventh Circuit decision, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split.
The Court analyzed whether the PLRA could be construed in a way that would avoid the constitutional question. It determined that it could, because PLRA exhaustion is subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the usual practice is that merits of a legal claim must go to a jury. Accordingly, the Court held that “parties have a right to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that falls under the Seventh Amendment.” In coming to this decision, the Court considered legal context in which the PLRA was passed, the usual practice of the courts, and cases involving subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court also explained that a judicial ruling could have an estoppel effect in a later ruling, rejecting the employee’s argument otherwise.
Finally, the Court rejected an argument that holding a jury trial on exhaustion would conflict with the purpose of the PLRA. It could not find any indication that Congress intended for judges to resolve exhaustion disputes in the specific circumstances where they intertwined with the merits. The Court did not decide whether Congress could have constitutionally required judges to do so.
Justices Barrett, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the decision would undermine the exhaustion question and allow a jury trial “of the very threshold question that was designed to streamline prisoner litigation.”
Ashley Caballero-Daltrey is part of the firm’s appellate team where she represents clients in federal and state appellate matters and dispositive motions. Before joining JSH, Ashley worked as a law clerk for Vice Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer of the Arizona Supreme Court. She focuses her practice on municipal law, personal injury, bad faith, and premises liability. Ashley has published articles and spoken on appellate issues including appeals for grazing permits on public lands, unique citation issues, and special action procedures.
adaltrey@jshfirm.com | 602.263.4489 | jshfirm.com/adaltrey