Skip to content
Furman Honick Law Logo
  • Our Attorneys
    • Dustin Furman
    • Allen Honick
    • Daniel Jones
  • Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice
      • Birth Injury
      • Nursing Error
      • Bed Sore
      • Brachial Plexus
      • Cerebral Palsy
      • Amputation Injury
      • Emergency Room Error
      • Hospital Error
      • Heart Attack Malpractice
      • Preeclampsia
      • Misdiagnosis
      • Preventable Suicide
      • Pulmonary Embolism
      • Sepsis Septic Shock
    • Personal Injury
      • Car Accident
      • Wrongful Death
      • Bicycle Accident
      • Traumatic Brain Injury
      • Dog Bites
      • Motorcycle Accidents
      • Pedestrian Accident
      • Rideshare Accident
      • Slip and Fall
      • Truck Accident
      • Bus Accident
      • Catastrophic Injury
      • Drunk Driving Accidents
      • Fatal Car Accidents
      • Head & Neck Injury
      • Negligent Security
      • Spine Injury
    • Civil Rights
    • Commercial Litigation
  • Our Office Locations
    • Baltimore
    • Owings Mills
    • Other Service Areas
  • Case Results
  • Client Reviews
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Search
410-844-6000

Furman | Honick Law Argues in the United States Supreme Court

Home  >  Blog  >  Furman | Honick Law Argues in the United States Supreme Court

October 19, 2024 | By Furman Honick Law
Furman | Honick Law Argues in the United States Supreme Court
Panorama of United States Supreme Court Building at Dusk

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a Furman | Honick civil rights case styled Neil Dupree v. Kevin Younger (No. 22-210). The Court considered whether to preserve an issue for appellate review a party must reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue denied at summary judgment. This issue, which is wholly detached from the merits of the case, only arose after one of the defendants, Neil Dupree, forfeited his legal arguments on appeal by failing to renew those arguments after the district court denied them at summary judgment.

Schedule a Free Consultation

The case stems from a 2013 prison beating in which three correctional officers, on direct orders from then-Lieutenant Dupree, attacked 7 prisoners for their perceived involvement in a previous altercation with another correctional officer (Dupree telling the COs he wanted “blood for blood”). Our pretrial detainee client, Kevin Younger, was one of those seven victims. However, Mr. Younger actually tried to help the correctional officer during that previous altercation (and likely saved the CO’s life), risking his own life in the process. Truly, no good deed goes unpunished. Mr. Younger’s act of courage and humanity was rewarded with a brutal attack by those tasked with ensuring his safety, beating him within an inch of his life, and leaving him with life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, and six months of punitive solitary confinement for false charges associated with the correctional officer altercation. The State of Maryland ultimately convicted the three correctional officer assailants, the warden was forced to resign, and internal affairs found overwhelming evidence that prison officials at every level covered up the attack.

In 2016, Mr. Younger filed a civil rights lawsuit against the individual bad actors, including the former warden and his third in command, Dupree (No. 1:16-cv-03269-RDB, D. Md.). Dupree moved for summary judgment and argued that Mr. Younger failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit, which is a mandatory requirement under the federal Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Summary judgment is only available when the material facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Proper exhaustion under the PLRA is an affirmative defense for which Dupree had the burden of proof. The district court denied Dupree’s summary judgment motion, and Dupree seemingly abandoned his exhaustion defense by never raising it at trial or in a post-trial motion. In February 2020, a federal jury returned a $700,000 verdict in Mr. Younger’s favor finding each defendant liable for violating Mr. Younger’s constitutional rights.

After the jury verdict, Dupree appealed the pretrial summary judgment denial of his affirmative exhaustion defense, despite decades-old Fourth Circuit precedent that required Dupree to preserve this argument in a post-trial motion. Amazingly, Dupree’s lawyer admitted to the Fourth Circuit that he knew what was required to preserve his exhaustion defense for appeal, but simply failed to do so. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Dupree’s appeal because he failed to preserve his arguments in a post-trial motion. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/216423.u.pdf.

Still refusing to accept responsibility for his actions, his lawyer’s incompetence, or for the jury’s verdict, Dupree filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court arguing that a purely legal issue is preserved for appeal once it is denied at summary judgment. We vigorously opposed the petition and argued that even if

purely legal issues are so preserved, Dupree’s exhaustion defense is a mixed question of fact and law that needed to be resolved in the district court. This is because a denial of summary judgment is not the same as a grant of summary judgment (which unequivocally preserves the issue for appeal). Indeed, a denial of summary judgment simply means that the claim or defense can proceed to trial—it is not a final judgment.

It turns out that by failing to preserve his exhaustion defense for appeal, Dupree’s lawyer tripped over his own incompetence and straight into a deeply entrenched circuit split concerning whether a purely legal issue needs to be re-raised after it is denied at summary judgment to preserve it for appeal. Recognizing this circuit split, and likely searching for a case less politically charged than others it considered this session, the Court granted Dupree’s petition.

At oral argument on Monday, however, the Court questioned whether this case was the right vehicle to decide the question presented because exhaustion requires fact-finding before applying the law. Justice Thomas noted the district court’s reference to unresolved disputed facts in its summary judgment denial opinion. Justice Sotomayor noted that Dupree’s exhaustion argument at summary judgment involved disputed facts. Justice Gorsuch offered the most pointed remarks and pressed Dupree’s counsel on why he failed to pursue his affirmative exhaustion defense at trial: “I would have thought that an affirmative defense, you would have had to raise something at trial . . . You didn’t even make a proffer of evidence. You didn’t do anything at trial on your own affirmative defense!”

We argued that Dupree’s affirmative exhaustion defense is not a neat, purely legal issue—i.e. the application of preexisting law to undisputed facts. This is because exhaustion is always a two-step inquiry, the first of which is necessarily fact-based. First, were remedies available? Second, if remedies are available, did the prisoner properly exhaust those remedies? Remedies can be unavailable in three ways: (1) the grievance process is a “dead end”; (2) the process is “opaque”; or (3) the prisoner was “thwarted” from using it. Clearly, factual disputes must be resolved to determine if remedies are available, and this must occur before answering the legal question of whether the prisoner properly exhausted those remedies.

We anticipate a decision from the Court by July. Regardless of how the Court resolves the circuit split on the purely legal preservation question, we are confident that the jury’s verdict will remain intact, and Mr. Younger will finally obtain the compensation that he deserves.

Read More About the Case Here:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-wrestles-with-rules-to-preserve-appellate-review

Dupree v. Younger
Supreme Court weighs appeal preservation question in Md. prisoner assault case

Docket:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-210.html

Trial Press:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-kevin-younger-prison-assault-20200204-zgakq2k6fbdh3nhr4bs3eepp34-story.html

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-prison-assault-civil-trial-mrdcc-20200128-j4ripbnhd5b6xmwyfpc7eysksq-story.html

Safeguard Your Future with Professional Legal Support

"*" indicates required fields

Recent Victories for Clients

$700,000

Excessive Force by Correctional Officers

Former prisoner was beaten by three correctional officers.

$625,000

Motor Vehicle Crash

Pre-trial offer $200k, verdict in under 30 minutes of $625k.

$10,000,000

Eight-Figure Medical Malpractice

$10,000,000 Eight-Figure Medical Malpractice

Meet Our Attorneys

Top Personal Injury & Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Baltimore

At Furman | Honick Law, our attorneys, Dustin Furman and Allen E. Honick, offer years of trial experience, dozens of jury verdicts, and a stellar reputation. Known for their dedication and personal client attention, they are committed to fighting for your rights as a survivor of medical malpractice or personal injury in Baltimore.

Learn More About Our Firm

Schedule a Free Consultation

Contact Experienced Baltimore Personal Injury Lawyers

 

Furman Honick Law
10 South St., Ste 203,
Baltimore , MD 21202
410-406-7890
Furman Honick Law
11155 Red Run Blvd., Ste. 110,
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117
410-844-6000
Contact Us Today

Schedule a Free Consultation

Furman | Honick Law is ready to offer personalized guidance and support tailored to your situation. By scheduling a free consultation, you’ll gain a clearer understanding of your case and the options available to you, all with no obligation.

Whether you’re dealing with a personal injury or medical malpractice issue, our attorneys are committed to making the legal process as accessible and stress-free as possible. Contact us today, and let us help you navigate the path to justice and fair compensation.

Schedule a Free Consultation

"*" indicates required fields

Furman Honick Law Logo
  • About
  • Case Results
  • Blog
  • Team

Site Map | Disclaimer

© 2025 Furman Honick Law – Prior results do not guarantee a similar result.