Prisoner Litigation Reform Act-Eighth Amendment

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: James Breyley, III v. Larry Fuchs

Case No.: 22-1663

Officials: Wood, Lee, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Prisoner Litigation Reform Act-Eighth Amendment

Breyley was assaulted by another prisoner, sustaining serious injuries. He later alleged that prison officials knew of the risk that he would be assaulted but failed to take preventive measures. Following the attack, medical staff allegedly did not arrange a specialist consultation within the recommended timeframe. Breyley asserted that he filed a formal complaint regarding both the lack of protection and inadequate medical care by placing a completed complaint form in his cell door for collection on January 2, 2017. When he received no acknowledgment, he contacted a complaint examiner a month later and was informed that no complaint had been received. He then submitted a new complaint referencing his earlier attempt, supported by a journal entry and correspondence with other inmates.

The Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Relying on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Lockett v. Bonson, the court found the inmate’s evidence insufficient to establish timely filing and concluded he should have followed up sooner after receiving no acknowledgment.

On de novo review, the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision finding that unlike in Lockett, the inmate provided more than a bare assertion of timely filing by submitting a sworn declaration, journal entry, and references in later complaints. This evidence, the court held, created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a timely complaint was filed. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the lower court to determine whether the exhaustion issue is intertwined with the case’s merits, which could entitle the parties to a jury trial under Perttu v. Richards.

Vacated and remanded.

Decided 10/09/25

Full Text