531 F. 2d 867 - Mason v. P J Ciccone

Dennis Earl Mason, an inmate at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissing his habeas corpus attack on the conditions of his confinement without prejudice for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of our holding in Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F.2d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir. 1974), that 'a federal prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies within the correctional system prior to seeking extraordinary relief in federal court.'1 We find the exhaustionof-administrative-remedies requirement to be constitutional and deny Mason's petition on the merits.

* The petitioner's constitutional challenge is premised on Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution which reads:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

He argues that Willis v. Ciccone, supra, in effect, suspends the right of habeas corpus and cannot be maintained.

It is clear from the opinion in Willis that no such result was intended. The Court fully recognized, and we now reaffirm, that:

There is no higher duty of a court, under our constitutional system, than the careful processing and adjudication of petitions for writs of habeas corpus, for it is in such proceedings that a person in custody charges that error, neglect, or evil purpose has resulted in his unlawful confinement and that he is deprived of his freedom contrary to law.

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 292, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969).

Moreover, the requirement that prisoners first exhaust available prison grievance procedures before petitioning for habeas corpus relief in a federal court does not in fact suspend the right of habeas corpus. 'Suspend' is defined to mean: 'To debar, usually for a time, from the exercise of a function or enjoyment of a privilege * * *.'2 Under Willis, the power to grant habeas corpus relief is at all times fully existent. The prior exhaustion of prison grievance procedures is merely a requirement, imposed under the discretionary authority of the court, designed to control the time and mode of the exercise of that power. The requirement was the product of the felt needs for effective prison and judicial administration. The Court said in Willis:

The extraordinary nature of the writ requires this. It should not be resorted to until other more conventional remedies have failed. When proper grievance procedures exist, their utilization benefits the prisoner, the prison authorities and the courts. If such procedures are given a fair chance to succeed, not only will the prisoner receive expeditious relief when he is entitled to it, the administrative burden processing federal suits places upon prison authorities will greatly decrease as well.3

Willis v. Ciccone, supra at 1015 (footnote omitted).

The administrative exhaustion requirement of Willis is similar in effect, if not in justification,4 to the rule of Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, that a state prisoner exhaust his state court remedies before applying for federal habeas corpus relief. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 492, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). It is not unconstitutional.

Further, there is no constitutional significance to the fact that a federal prisoner's claims challenging the conditions of his confinement must first be presented to an administrative body rather than a judicial tribunal.5 The prior submission of disputes to administrative agencies is common to our law. The practice promotes and permits: (1) the development of the necessary factual background upon which the claim is based; (2) the exercise of administrative expertise and discretionary authority often necessary for the resolution of the dispute;6 (3) the autonomy of the prison administration;7 and (4) judicial efficiency from the settlement of disputes at the prison level. See McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 194--195, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194(1969).8 The benefits from prior administrative review are substantial. The procedure must be given an opportunity to succeed.9

Moreover, there can be no fear that the scope of judicial review will be narrowed because of the prior resort to the prison grievance procedure. The administrative decision is final neither as to the law nor as to the facts necessary for the judicial determination of the habeas corpus claim. When warranted, a full evidentiary hearing is available before the district judge. The federal courts remain the final arbiters of law and fact in fulfillment of their duty to safeguard individual freedoms.10 Cf. Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974); Oestereich v. Selective Service Board No. 11, 393 U.S. 233, 89 S.Ct. 414, 21 L.Ed.2d 402 (1968); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932).

The exhaustion of administrative remedies may cause delay if the procedures are improperly structured. Willis made clear, however, that the administrative procedures must be expeditious, providing a real possibility for relief upon an impartial view of the prisoner's complaint.11 The lapse of time between submission and disposition can render administrative relief inadequate. See Dixon v. State of Florida, 388 F.2d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 1968); Smith v. State of Kansas, 356 F.2d 654, 656 (10th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 871, 88 S.Ct. 154, 19 L.Ed.2d 151 (1967).

We are concerned that the grievance procedures, currently in effect at the Springfield Medical Center, are neither as independent nor as simple as the Court anticipated they would be.12 The Council of this Court was informed by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that an independent hearing officer from outside the prison system would be appointed at the Medical Center to function as a quasi-judicial administrative officer with the responsibility to hear grievances after the prisoner had been apprised of the institution's response to his complaint. It was contemplated that the hearing would be integrated into the appellate process at the institutional level. We are hopeful that the existing procedures will be simplified by eliminating some of the steps in the grievance procedure, that the existing time limits will be shortened and that an independent hearing officer at the appellate level will be established. Failure to do so may require a reconsideration of Willis. Such reconsideration might well result in the reimposition upon the District Court for the Western District of Missouri of the overwhelming burden of processing all prisoner complaints. The burden will be reimposed at a time when the workload of that court will make impossible the prompt attention to prisoner complaints that they can receive in a properly structured administrative proceeding.

We hold that the present grievance procedure, while in need of substantial revision, has not been demonstrated to be so complicated and time consuming that it must be deemed inadequate. Cf. Young v. Ragen, 337 U.S. 235, 69 S.Ct. 1073, 93 L.Ed. 1333 (1949); Marino v. Ragen, 332 U.S. 561, 68 S.Ct. 240, 92 L.Ed. 170 (1947) (per curiam) (Rutledge, Douglas and Murphy, JJ., concurring).

Mason has failed to allege exhaustion of his available administrative remedies, and under Willis, his petition was properly dismissed without prejudice. In the interests of judicial efficiency, however, we find it appropriate to pass upon the merits of his claim.13

The petitioner's allegation of cruel and unusual punishment is based merely on the denial of his request to be treated by a particular doctor at the Medical Center. It is not alleged that his malady is so severe that only a specialist at the Medical Center can properly treat it. Indeed, the petitioner admits in his petition that, according to medical opinion, he can be treated by any doctor at any institution. His claim does not rise to a constitutional level. See Wilbron v. Hutto, 509 F.2d 621, 622 (8th Cir. 1975); Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 1970).

Mason's petition for habeas corpus relief is denied.