Skip to content
Should incarcerated individuals have the right to a jury trial when prison officials attempt to block their lawsuits by claiming they failed to go through the prison’s internal grievance process? This issue is at the heart of Perttu v. Richards, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court appeared evenly divided over yesterday, Marco Poggio of Law360.com reported. The ruling could impact survivors of sexual abuse in prisons nationwide.
The Case: Prison Sexual Abuse and Retaliation
The lawsuit was brought by Michigan prisoner Kyle Richards and two other men, who accused prison official Thomas Perttu of sexual abuse and retaliation at the Baraga Correctional Facility. They alleged that Perttu sexually assaulted at least a dozen inmates and then destroyed their grievance documents, preventing them from reporting the abuse through official channels.
“We file this action at risk to our lives and safety,” their lawsuit stated. “This is our last resort in an attempt to stop a vicious sexual predator from continuing his preying on vulnerable helpless inmates.”
The case raises a fundamental question: should a judge alone decide whether a prisoner has exhausted all available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, or should a jury have a say, especially when allegations of abuse and retaliation are intertwined with the exhaustion process?
The Supreme Court’s Debate
During oral arguments, Michigan’s attorney argued that allowing judges to decide these matters helps curb frivolous lawsuits. But some justices, including Neil Gorsuch, pushed back.
“Isn’t the default rule, in this country, to have a right to trial by jury?” Gorsuch asked. “Why would we interpret the [Prison Litigation Reform Act], which is silent about juries, to have a rule that you never get a jury?”
Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern that prisoners might be denied their constitutional right to a jury trial if a judge alone gets to decide whether they properly followed prison grievance procedures. “If you have to convince the judge before you get to the jury, the jury right doesn’t mean all that much,” she said.
On the other hand, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that jury trials might not apply to this kind of legal dispute, questioning whether exhaustion requirements existed when the Seventh Amendment was adopted in 1791.
The Impact on Prison Abuse Survivors
For survivors of sexual abuse in prisons, this case is more than just a legal debate—it’s about access to justice. If prison officials can destroy grievance forms and then claim that survivors failed to properly report their abuse, it effectively blocks their ability to sue.
Prison reform advocates argue that allowing juries to weigh in on whether prisoners exhausted administrative remedies would provide a necessary safeguard against prison officials who try to silence abuse survivors.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the potential exaggeration of concerns about a flood of lawsuits, pointing out that her clerks found only five cases in 12 years where exhaustion disputes were intertwined with abuse claims. “I don’t see where the floodgates have come up,” she said.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Perttu v. Richards could have wide-reaching consequences. If they rule in favor of Richards, prisoners who claim they were sexually abused may have a better chance at getting their day in court. If they rule against him, prison officials accused of abuse will have a powerful tool to block lawsuits from reaching a jury.
For incarcerated survivors of sexual abuse, the case is a stark reminder of the hurdles they face in seeking justice. No matter the outcome, one thing is clear: sexual abuse in prisons remains a civil rights crisis that demands accountability.
