Eleventh Circuit Clarifies that Prisoners Exhaust Remedies When They Properly Mail a BP-11 Form: McGuire-Mollica v. Griffin

1. Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Terri McGuire-Mollica v. Richard Griffin, No. 24-11081 (Aug. 6, 2025), addressed a recurring question in federal prisoner litigation: when has a prisoner “exhausted” the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) four-step grievance process for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)?

Plaintiff–appellant Terri McGuire-Mollica, suffering from an enlarging uterine fibroid, alleged deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment after prison medical staff repeatedly denied surgery. She completed and mailed her final administrative appeal (BP-11) to the BOP’s Office of General Counsel, but the BOP claimed it never received or logged the form. The district court dismissed her Bivens action for non-exhaustion. The Eleventh Circuit vacated that dismissal, holding that (1) a prisoner’s obligation ends once she properly submits the BP-11; and (2) if officials fail to log the appeal, the remedy is “unavailable” under Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016). The decision harmonises Eleventh Circuit precedent with Supreme Court doctrine, narrows the reach of Shivers v. United States, 1 F.4th 924 (11th Cir. 2021), and establishes a clearer rule for future litigants.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: Where a federal prisoner properly completes and mails her BP-11 appeal, she has fulfilled her exhaustion obligation; failure of BOP staff to log the form renders the administrative remedy “unavailable.”
• Reversal: The district court’s dismissal for non-exhaustion was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings on the merits.
• Key Points:
  • Prisoners are not responsible for “logging” documents into SENTRY; that duty lies with BOP personnel.
  • Shivers is distinguishable where the prisoner did not prove proper submission or used an unsigned form.
  • Under Ross, an opaque or dead-end process is deemed unavailable; McGuire-Mollica therefore could sue without waiting the full 40-day response period.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) – Established that prisoners need only exhaust “available” remedies and introduced three unavailability categories: dead-end, opacity, and thwarting. The Eleventh Circuit relied heavily on the “opacity” category.
2. Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) – Provides the Eleventh Circuit’s two-step framework for deciding motions to dismiss for non-exhaustion. Used by the panel to analyse factual disputes and burden allocation.
3. Shivers v. United States, 1 F.4th 924 (11th Cir. 2021) – Earlier Eleventh Circuit case finding non-exhaustion where a BP-11 was never received and the inmate could not prove proper submission. The panel distinguished Shivers on two grounds: lack of district-court finding of submission and an unsigned form.
4. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) – Seventh Circuit authority holding that a prisoner’s remedies are exhausted when officials mishandle a grievance. Cited as persuasive support.
5. Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007) – “Hide-and-seek” language on administrative remedies. Quoted to emphasise that unknowable procedures are unavailable.
6. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) & Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) – Supreme Court authority on mandatory exhaustion and “proper” grievance filing. Confirmed that courts look to agency rules, not judge-made standards.
7. Williams v. Priatno, 829 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2016) – Second Circuit case applying the “opacity” exception when a grievance was unfiled. Cited as analogous.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The panel, per Chief Judge William Pryor, undertook the Turner two-step analysis:

1. Step 1 – Accept Plaintiff’s Facts: The magistrate judge expressly found that McGuire-Mollica “properly completed and mailed” her BP-11. Taking those facts as true, the court asked whether dismissal was still warranted.
2. Step 2 – Legal Conclusions: Dismissal was improper because:
   • Division of Duties: 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a) imposes on prisoners only the duty to submit; § 542.18 tasks staff with logging and responding. Once the inmate mails the BP-11, her obligation ends.
   • Shivers Distinction: Unlike in Shivers, here (1) the district court credited mailing, and (2) the form was signed and otherwise compliant. Hence failure to log was outside the prisoner’s control.
   • Opacity Exception: Because regulations are silent on what a prisoner should do when officials do not log or respond to a BP-11, the process is “practically incapable of use,” fitting Ross’s second category of unavailability.
   • Timing of Lawsuit: The 40-day response period in § 542.18 starts only once the BP-11 is logged. If officials never log it, no clock begins to run, and requiring indefinite waiting would nullify Ross.

3.3 Likely Impact on Future Litigation

• Clarifies Exhaustion Standard: Establishes a bright-line rule: proper mailing of a BP-11 suffices. Defendants can no longer rely solely on SENTRY logs to disprove exhaustion if the prisoner presents credible evidence of mailing.
• Litigation Posture: Dismissals at the pleading stage will be harder where inmates allege specific mailing facts (dates, tracking numbers, etc.). Courts must credit those facts unless clearly contradicted.
• Administrative Change Incentive: BOP may revise regulations or internal tracking to ensure acknowledgment receipts for BP-11 filings, reducing evidentiary disputes.
• Potential Circuit Split Narrowing: Aligns Eleventh Circuit more closely with Second and Seventh Circuits, reducing inter-circuit conflicts on mishandled grievances.
• Bivens Viability Limits Undiscussed: Although the substantive claim is a medical-indifference Bivens action—a doctrine curtailed post-Egbert v. Boule—the panel did not reach that issue, leaving room for future arguments.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)

Federal statute requiring prisoners to use a prison’s grievance process before filing federal lawsuits about prison conditions.

Exhaustion

Completing every required step of an administrative grievance process.

BOP Grievance Forms (BP-9, BP-10, BP-11)

Three sequential forms prisoners must file: BP-9 to the Warden; BP-10 to the Regional Director; BP-11 to the General Counsel.

SENTRY

BOP’s electronic system that records and tracks grievances and responses.

Ross v. Blake “Unavailability”

An exception allowing prisoners to skip further administrative steps when the process is a dead end, too confusing, or sabotaged.

Turner Two-Step

Eleventh Circuit framework: (1) accept plaintiff’s facts, ask if dismissal follows; (2) if not, resolve fact disputes via findings.

“Logging” a Grievance

The administrative act by prison staff of entering a grievance into SENTRY, starting response deadlines.

5. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in McGuire-Mollica v. Griffin closes a loophole that allowed prison officials to defeat constitutional claims by simply failing to process paperwork. It underscores that exhaustion is a two-party enterprise: prisoners must comply with submission rules, but administrators must, in turn, carry out their regulatory duties. When the latter fail, the remedy is “unavailable,” and the courthouse doors reopen.

Practitioners should carefully document mailing of BP-11 forms—certified mail receipts, tracking numbers, sworn declarations—to take advantage of this precedent. Meanwhile, the BOP may need systemic changes to avoid future litigation over lost or unlogged grievances. In the broader legal landscape, the decision reflects the judiciary’s continuing effort to balance the PLRA’s objectives with fundamental access-to-justice principles.