The federal appeals court based in Denver ruled on Tuesday that an incarcerated man shot by a corrections officer during his courthouse appearance was required to first file an internal prison grievance before suing for excessive force, even though he was outside the prison at the time.

In reaching its conclusion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded there was no “geographic test” that automatically excuses prisoners from lodging grievances when their rights are violated beyond prison walls. Civil rights advocates, however, criticized the panel’s suggestion that the mandatory grievance process should be applied broadly because of the alleged benefits it confers on prisoners.

Brian Estrada was incarcerated in the Colorado Department of Corrections when he was transported to the Logan County courthouse in May 2018 for a court appearance. Although he was shackled and handcuffed, Estrada tried to escape in the courtroom. Corrections Officer Jacob Smart shot Estrada multiple times, injuring him.

Estrada subsequently filed suit alleging excessive force. However, a trial judge terminated the case in favor of Smart because Estrada, prior to suing, had not gone through the corrections department’s three-step grievance process first. That requirement, known as “administrative exhaustion,” is mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in cases “brought with respect to prison conditions.”

The 10th Circuit panel agreed Estrada was a prisoner shot by a prison employee, which required him to file the grievances even though both men were outside the prison walls.

The purpose of the PLRA, explained Judge Richard E.N. Federico, is to improve prison conditions by quickly bringing mistreatment to the attention of the warden without years-long litigation.

“For example, in this case, if Estrada had timely pursued the three-step grievance process regarding the courthouse shooting, he would have alerted prison officials that CDOC officers perhaps need additional training on the appropriate tactics,” he wrote in the July 16 opinion. “Or, at the very least, his grievances would have drawn CDOC’s attention to Smart, who shot a fully restrained prisoner three times without any attempt to use a taser or other lesser force.”

However, civil rights attorney Mari Newman disputed the notion that a grievance by Estrada would have done anything to improve prison conditions.

“The PLRA is being used as a barrier to inmates’ ability to seek justice in the courts, not to improve conditions,” she said. “If CDOC officials failed to take notice when their guard shot an unarmed, shackled inmate three times in violation of clearly established law, that is because they have buried their heads deep in the ground. The only thing that will force CDOC to improve inmate conditions is being held accountable in a court of law.”

A strict requirement

Before filing a federal lawsuit, incarcerated plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies, otherwise their claims are barred. Lawmakers of both parties originally supported the 1995 legislation to cut down on frivolous litigation, which then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole referred to as “fun-and-games.”

U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez initially declined to dismiss Estrada’s lawsuit, concluding Smart’s actions would have violated Estrada’s clearly established rights if proven. However, Smart then pointed out Estrada had never filed a grievance about the shooting, meaning the excessive force claim was barred.

Martínez agreed, noting the corrections department’s policy about prisoner grievances did not limit the process to only violations that occur inside a prison.

On appeal to the 10th Circuit, Estrada insisted that requiring a grievance for mistreatment outside of prison would unreasonably stretch the scope of the PLRA. A tenant, for example, would not expect their apartment complex’s rules to apply outside of the premises, he argued.

“If a prison employee shooting an inmate at a courthouse is a ‘prison condition,’ it is hard to imagine any suit against a prison employee that would not qualify,” wrote Estrada’s attorneys. “If a prison guard made defamatory statements about an inmate in (a) hypothetical newspaper article, according to Officer Smart the inmate would need to exhaust before filing suit.”

‘Not a technicality’

During oral arguments to the 10th Circuit, the appellate judges quizzed the Colorado Attorney General’s Office how broadly the grievance requirement should apply.

“What if Estrada had escaped and two days later, Mr. Smart encounters him at the grocery store, knowing he’s an escaped prisoner,” said Federico. “Confrontation ensues and he shoots him there in the grocery store. Would Mr. Estrada have to exhaust that?”

“Yes,” answered Senior Assistant Attorney General Abigail L. Smith, representing Smart. “It doesn’t matter that the employee conduct occurred in a prison facility or somewhere that isn’t a prison facility.”

The 10th Circuit concluded the facts of Estrada’s case fell under the category of a prison conditions lawsuit for which he had to file a grievance. No other federal appeals court, Federico noted, adopted a “geographic limitation” to prison buildings alone.

“Requiring a prisoner to file a grievance is not a technicality; instead, it is mandatory to ensure prison ‘efficiency,'” he wrote, “by allowing prison officials to promptly review incidents and gather evidence, as well as maintain control over the flow of prison life.”

Emma McLean-Riggs, staff attorney for the ACLU of Colorado, countered that Estrada’s inability to seek damages for being shot represented “another injustice” under the PLRA’s restrictions.

“The opinion’s suggestion that the PLRA is a valuable tool to improve the circumstances of incarcerated people further defies reality,” she said. “Instead, these processes and this opinion will have the effect of further burying incarcerated people’s pleas for help in a Byzantine bureaucracy and denying access to the courts on technicalities.”

The case is Estrada v. Smart.