Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01171/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01171-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1171

___________

Mark Conner, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jane Doe, Infirmary Employee, *

Jefferson County Jail; Nnamdi * [UNPUBLISHED]

Ifediora, Dr., Jefferson County Jail *

(originally sued as John Doe), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 31, 2008

Filed: August 5, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Mark Conner appeals the district court’s dismissal without

prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. We grant Conner’s in forma pauperis motion and leave the fee collection

details to the district court. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir.

1997) (per curiam). 

Appellate Case: 08-1171 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2008 Entry ID: 3458148
-2-

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that a

defendant must plead and prove. See Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 915, 921 (2007).

Defendant Dr. Ifediora offered the Jefferson County Jail (JCJ) grievance policy, and

the JCJ grievance officer’s declaration that there was no record of Conner’s having

filed any grievance during his 2006 detention at JCJ. This evidence was insufficient

to establish failure to exhaust in the face of Conner’s assertion in his verified

complaint that he had filed at least two relevant grievances but did not receive copies

of them or responses to them. See Hanks v. Prachar, 457 F.3d 774, 775 (8th Cir.

2006) (per curiam) (noting that verified complaint is equivalent to affidavit for

summary judgment purposes); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005)

(per curiam) (de novo review of district court’s application of Prison Litigation

Reform Act, and clear-error review of its findings of fact); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d

736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (remedy prison officials keep inmate from using is not

“available” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)); cf. Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687,

697-98 (8th Cir. 2001) (district court lacked sufficient factual basis to find failure to

exhaust where evidence at trial showed that prison officials refused to respond to

inmate’s informal resolution request and thus that inmate was precluded from

completing grievance process). 

Accordingly, we hold that dismissal for failure to exhaust was unwarranted on

the record before the district court, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-1171 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2008 Entry ID: 3458148