Ross v. Blake

Shaidon Blake (plaintiff) was an inmate in a Maryland prison. While prison guards James Madigan and Michael Ross (defendants) were moving Blake within the prison, Madigan shoved Blake twice and then punched Blake in the face five times. Ross held Blake throughout. Blake reported the assault to a senior officer, prompting referral to the state prison system’s Internal Investigative Unit (IIU), which was charged with investigating employee misconduct. IIU’s final report condemned Madigan’s conduct but made no findings concerning Ross. Blake later sued Madigan and Ross under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his constitutional rights based on Madigan’s use of force and Ross’s failure to protect. Ross asserted an affirmative defense, claiming that Blake’s claim could not succeed because Blake failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). Ross referenced the Maryland Inmate Handbook’s Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP), under which a prisoner was to first report a grievance to the prison warden and then potentially appeal to the commissioner of correction and finally the Inmate Grievance Office (IGO). Blake responded that he had not sought a remedy via the ARP because he believed the ARP was unavailable once a matter was referred to the IIU. The district court rejected Blake’s argument and dismissed the suit. The Fourth Circuit reversed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.