Cato Expert Discusses Perttu v. Richards Oral Arguments

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Perttu v. Richards. Kyle Richards, a Michigan prisoner, filed a § 1983 suit alleging that he was sexually harassed and retaliated against by Thomas Perttu, his resident unit manager. Richards’ claims are subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which requires inmates to exhaust internal administrative remedies before bringing suit. Richards alleges that he tried to exhaust these remedies, but Perttu destroyed his written grievances, threatened to kill him if he continued filing grievances, and placed him in administrative segregation.

Without putting the issue to a jury, the district court determined that Richards had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and dismissed his suit. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Richards is entitled to a jury trial of the disputed facts concerning his efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Cato filed an amicus brief at the merits stage arguing that Richards is entitled to have a jury determine disputed facts concerning administrative exhaustion, especially when those factual disputes are inseparable from the merits of the inmate’s underlying retaliation claim. The Seventh Amendment assigns to juries, not judges, responsibility for resolving disputed facts in civil cases involving common-law causes of action (including federal civil rights claims)—and for good reason. This safeguard is of particular importance in cases like this where government officials, such as the correctional officers, have ready means of thwarting citizens’ efforts to pursue their claims through the courts.

The Supreme Court should affirm the Sixth Circuit—protecting the constitutional right to have juries of ordinary citizens resolve factual disputes between citizens and their government.