Zander v. Lappin

415 F. App'x 491
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 10, 2011
Docket10-6484
StatusUnpublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 415 F. App'x 491 (Zander v. Lappin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Zander v. Lappin, 415 F. App'x 491 (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Robert Alex Zander appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Zander argues on appeal, as he did below, that the actions of prison officials rendered those remedies “unavailable” to him.

“[A]n administrative remedy is not considered to have been available if a prisoner, through no fault of his own, was prevented from availing himself of it.” Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir.2008). Thus, “when prison officials prevent inmates from using the administrative process ..., the process that exists on paper becomes unavailable in reality.” Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the district court is “obligated to ensure that any defects in exhaustion were not procured from the action or inaction of prison officials.” Aquilar-Avellaveda v. Terrell, 478 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir.2007).

In this case, the district court did not address Zander’s allegations that prison officials hindered his ability to exhaust his administrative remedies. We therefore vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants and remand for a determination of whether the grievance procedure was “available” to Zander within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006) so that he could administratively exhaust his claim. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Louis v. Stirling
D. South Carolina, 2025
Green v. Baldwin
D. South Carolina, 2025
Robert Zander v. Harley Lappin
509 F. App'x 203 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
415 F. App'x 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zander-v-lappin-ca4-2011.