Strict Compliance with PLRA Exhaustion: No “Sue-First, Exhaust-Later” Rule

Introduction

Bobby Tatum v. Russell Williams is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (No. 24-1305, decided May 20, 2025) that clarifies the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) exhaustion requirement. Plaintiff‐appellant Bobby Tatum, an Illinois inmate, alleged that prison officer Russell Williams subjected him to an unconstitutional, overly invasive strip search in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Before filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Tatum needed to exhaust the administrative grievance process at Shawnee Correctional Center (under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)), including a direct PREA grievance to the Administrative Review Board. The central issues on appeal were:

Whether Tatum had “strictly complied” with Shawnee’s grievance procedures;
Whether the direct PREA route excused any failure in the facility’s internal process;
How a Pavey hearing resolves factual disputes over exhaustion;
The standards for appointing counsel under Pruitt v. Mote;
The propriety of discovery rulings, evidentiary determinations, and recusal claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Officer Williams on the ground that Tatum failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Key holdings include:

Tatum did not file a formal grievance in Shawnee’s grievance log on May 21, 2021, and his affidavit alone could not overcome the recorded absence.
Even assuming the Offender Manual permitted a direct PREA grievance to the Administrative Review Board, Tatum filed suit on September 7, 2021—before the Board’s September 15 response—falling short of “all steps necessary” to exhaust.
The Pavey hearing properly resolved factual disputes regarding the existence of a May 21 grievance and the availability of grievance procedures.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tatum’s motions for appointment of counsel under the Pruitt factors, because the case involved a single, non‐complex issue and Tatum demonstrated competence in his filings.
Tatum forfeited discovery of potentially exculpatory video evidence by failing to move to compel it in a timely manner.
Allegations of biased judicial conduct were unsupported, and critical remarks alone do not require recusal under §§ 144 or 455.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (PLRA exhaustion requirement): Prisoners must exhaust “available” administrative remedies before suing.
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008): Authorizes a hearing to resolve factual disputes over exhaustion at summary judgment.
Crouch v. Brown, 27 F.4th 1315 (7th Cir. 2022): Exhaustion is complete only after “all steps necessary” in one administrative chain.
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007, en banc): Sets criteria for appointing counsel in prisoner cases.
Riley v. Waterman, 126 F.4th 1287 (7th Cir. 2025): Applies Pruitt factors at different litigation stages.
Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2015): Lack of diligence in discovery is not excusable.
Hall v. Jung, 819 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2016): Appellate record must include hearing transcript to review evidentiary rulings.
Thomas v. Dart, 39 F.4th 835 (7th Cir. 2022) & United States v. Barr, 960 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2020): Standards for recusal/disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455.
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994): Judicial remarks alone do not demonstrate bias.

Legal Reasoning

1. Availability of Remedies: The court found Shawnee’s internal grievance process both available and reliable. Tatum’s failure to produce a May 21 grievance in the facility’s log or his own counseling record weighed against him.

2. Strict Exhaustion: Tatum’s direct PREA grievance to the Administrative Review Board did not substitute for fully exhausting Shawnee’s process, because he did not await the Board’s response before filing suit. Under Crouch, exhaustion occurs only after completing all required steps in the chain.

3. Pavey Hearing: The district court’s credibility findings—crediting the grievance officer’s unrebutted testimony over Tatum’s self‐interested affidavit—were within its discretion. Failure to include the transcript in the appellate record precluded review of any procedural errors.

4. Appointment of Counsel: Applying Pruitt and Riley, the court held the case was not legally or factually complex and that Tatum had demonstrated sufficient literacy and diligence to proceed pro se.

5. Discovery and Sanctions: Tatum’s request for prison‐surveillance video came too late and without a motion to compel, absolving the district court of any discovery sanction.

6. Recusal and Bias: Absent objective evidence beyond critical remarks, the judge’s refusal to recuse was proper under §§ 144 and 455.

Impact

This decision cements the Seventh Circuit’s rigorous approach to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. Prisoners must not only initiate grievances but must press them through every available administrative step—and await final responses—before filing suit. The ruling also underscores:

The importance of Pavey hearings to resolve exhaustion disputes;
The high threshold for appointing counsel in pro se prisoner suits;
The need for diligent discovery practice, including motions to compel;
The limited scope of judicial-bias challenges absent clear, objective proof.

Lower courts will look to Tatum v. Williams as a template for strict adherence to procedural rules, reinforcing the PLRA’s gatekeeping role in prisoner litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

PLRA Exhaustion: Before suing over conditions of confinement, an inmate must follow the prison’s grievance rules and get a final answer.
Pavey Hearing: A mini‐trial at summary judgment where the court hears live testimony on whether the inmate really filed grievances.
Pruitt Factors: A six‐factor test (complexity, legal knowledge, factual investigation, contact with witnesses, etc.) to decide if the court should appoint free counsel for an indigent prisoner.
PREA Grievance: Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, an inmate may bypass facility staff for sexual-abuse complaints—but still must complete that direct process before suing.
Recusal vs. Disqualification: Judges choose to step aside under federal statutes when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Conclusion

In Tatum v. Williams, the Seventh Circuit reinforces that strict compliance with the PLRA’s exhaustion mandate is non-negotiable. The decision clarifies that:

Failure to file and follow up on grievances in the internal process dooms a prisoner’s suit;
No “sue‐first, exhaust‐later” approach is permitted—even via PREA channels;
Pavey hearings are the proper vehicle for resolving exhaustion disputes;
Appointment of counsel remains rare and governed by Pruitt’s exacting standard;
Judicial discretion in discovery, evidentiary rulings, and recusal is entitled to deference.

This ruling will guide litigants and lower courts alike, emphasizing procedural discipline and protecting judicial resources against unexhausted prisoner claims.