Woodford v. Ngo
Ngo filed a civil rights claim against the prison warden claiming that his exclusion from certain prison programs violated his rights. Ngo was serving a life sentence in a California priosn when he was placed in administrative segregation as punishment for engaging in inappropriate activity with a volunteer Catholic priest. Ngo was released into the general prison population on the condition that he was not allowed to participate in certain programs, such as evening fellowship and Bible study sessions. Ngo appealed the disciplinary action to the prison appeals coordinator. His appeal was denied because it was filed more than fifteen working days after “the event or decision being appealed.” He then filed another appeal, alleging that his first appeal was within the 15 day limit, and after that appeal was rejected, Ngo finally filed a complaint with a federal district court.
Ngo's complaint complaint alleged, among other things, that his disciplinary restrictions violated his First Amendment rights. The prison moved to dismiss the complaint based on the Prison Litigation Act, which requires prisoners to "exhaust" all "available" administrative remedies within the prison system before filing a complaint in court. The district court granted the prison ’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that Ngo had not exhausted all of his administrative remedies because, if his first appeal had been timely, he other appeals within the prison system would have been "available" to him. The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals reversed the district court. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the untimeliness of Ngo's initial appeal made the other administrative appeals not "available" to him; thus, even though Ngo could have appealed more times in the administrative process had his first appeal been timely, he had no further "available" appeals when he filed his claim in district court, and the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Act was satisfied.
Question Presented:
Does a prisoner satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act's administrative exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective
administrative appeal?
