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 before filing suit. The Supreme Court granted Perttu’s petition to review the case.
Cato filed an amicus brief arguing that Richards and other inmates are 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 claim. The Seventh Amendment guarantees Americans the right to a truly neutral fact-finder in the form of a jury in most civil cases, including those challenging government actions. This protection is especially important when government officials, such as the correctional officers in this case, have ready means of thwarting citizens’ efforts to pursue their claims through the courts. The Constitution assigns to juries, not judges, responsibility for resolving disputed facts in criminal cases and in civil cases involving common-law causes of action—and for good reason. No less than other citizens, PLRA litigants are thus entitled to have their claims decided by the constitutionally appointed fact-finder.
