McCarthy v. Madigan
Citation and Court
503 U.S. 140 (1992), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
McCarthy, a federal prisoner, filed a Bivens action in federal court alleging that prison officials had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Prison officials moved to dismiss, arguing McCarthy had not exhausted the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative grievance procedures before suing.
Issue
Whether a federal prisoner must exhaust the Bureau of Prisons’ internal grievance procedures before bringing a Bivens constitutional tort action for money damages.
Holding
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required as a precondition to a Bivens damages action in the absence of a statutory exhaustion requirement, because the administrative remedy cannot provide the relief sought (money damages) and the prisoner had a constitutional interest in prompt access to court.
Rule / Doctrine
Courts have discretion to require administrative exhaustion as a prudential matter, but exhaustion may be excused when: (1) an agency cannot grant effective relief (e.g., cannot award money damages), (2) the administrative process would be biased or unable to provide a fair hearing, or (3) requiring exhaustion would cause undue prejudice. Statutory exhaustion requirements, however, are mandatory.
Significance
McCarthy v. Madigan is a key case on the judge-made exhaustion doctrine in the administrative law context, distinguishing discretionary prudential exhaustion (which courts can waive) from statutory exhaustion (which they cannot). Much of its practical significance was later eclipsed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s mandatory exhaustion requirement.