UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ KYLE BRANDON RICHARDS, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 22-1298 │ v. │ │ THOMAS PERTTU, Residential Unit Manager, also │ named as Unknown Perta in the complaint, also │ known as Perttu, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette. No. 2:20-cv-00076—Hala Y. Jarbou, District Judge.

Argued: January 18, 2024

Decided and Filed: March 19, 2024

Before: GILMAN, READLER, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Sean Gray, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Joshua S. Smith, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sean Gray, J. Scott Ballenger, Lauren McNerney, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph Y. Ho, Austin C. Raines, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. Kyle Brandon Richards, Baraga, Michigan, pro se. No. 22-1298 Richards v. Perttu Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Kyle Brandon Richards, a Michigan prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights suit because Richards failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Richards and two fellow inmates at the Baraga Correctional Facility in Michigan (the Plaintiffs) sued Resident Unit Manager Thomas Perttu based on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and destruction of property, but only Richards has appealed the adverse judgment against them. In his retaliation claim, Richards alleges that Perttu prevented him from filing grievances related to Perttu’s alleged sexual abuse by ripping up the grievances or otherwise destroying them. The complaint lays out several specific instances when Perttu allegedly destroyed grievances that Richards had intended to file. Richards also claims that Perttu threatened to kill him if he persisted in trying to file more grievances, and that he was wrongfully held in administrative segregation for doing so. The complaint seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Richards thereafter cross-moved for summary judgment, raising various First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims. The district court denied Perttu’s motion because questions of fact precluded summary judgment on the exhaustion issue. Richards’s motion for summary judgment was similarly denied as premature. A magistrate judge then held an evidentiary hearing to determine whe