Shawn Michael Walther v. Yonas Habtermariam; William Trachsel; Christi Gonzalez; Hellaryce Reed

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2764
___________________________
Shawn Michael Walther
Plaintiff Appellant
v.
Yonas Habtermariam; William Trachsel;
Christi Gonzalez; Hellaryce Reed
Defendants Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: December 28, 2022
Filed: January 13, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM
Shawn Walther filed this prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against numerous officials at the St. Louis County Justice Center (collectively,
Appellees) alleging they violated his Due Process rights as a Justice Center pretrial
detainee when they used excessive physical force and placed him in a restraint chair

-- 1 of 3 --

for several hours in response to his passive resistance to commands during an incident
in mid-June 2017. After a pretrial evidentiary hearing, the district court1 dismissed
the suit without prejudice, agreeing with Appellees that Walther had failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies, as the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)
requires. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Walther appeals the dismissal. After briefing
by counsel, we advised that the appeal would be submitted without oral argument.
Walther then filed a pro se motion objecting to no-argument submission.
At the evidentiary hearing, Walther testified that he attempted to submit three
written grievances about the June 2017 incident, as the Justice Center’s internal
grievance policy requires, but jail officials failed to deliver or destroyed all three.
Because he never received a grievance response, Walther asserted, he could not
appeal any adverse decision. The district court found Walther’s testimony not
credible because it contradicted his deposition testimony in several important respects
and was inconsistent with testimonial and documentary evidence submitted by
Appellees. The court found Walther’s testimony “implausible” because he admitted
knowing and understanding the grievance policy; his other unrelated grievances were
processed consistent with the policy; and the manager responsible for processing
grievances testified that he searched thoroughly for the allegedly missing grievances
and did not believe any grievance filed by Walther would be destroyed. Based on this
credibility finding, the district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust.
On appeal, while we review de novo the district court’s application of the
PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, we will reverse a district court’s factual findings
underlying an exhaustion determination only if the district court committed clear
error. See, e.g., Boyd v. Rechcigl, 790 F. App’x 53, 54 (8th Cir. 2020). Walther is
1The Honorable Shirley Padmore Mensah, United States Magistrate Judge for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition
by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

unable to overcome our deferential standard of review. Indeed, where the key
finding is the district court’s credibility determination, as in this case, the district
court is entitled to even greater deference. Id. Its credibility finding is virtually
unreviewable on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not disturb the district court’s adverse
credibility determination. Walther’s argument that anyone could have accessed the
unlocked grievance submission box, where Walther testified his grievances were
placed before processing, cannot overcome the court’s finding that the testimony was
not credible. Therefore, we agree with the district court that Walther failed to carry
his burden of proving that prison officials made the unexhausted grievance remedies
unavailable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny as
moot Walther’s pro se objection to no-argument submission. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --