Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03445/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03445-0/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. 06-3445

___________

Lisa Leach, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Supt. Steven Moore; Karen Diegelman; * 

Jennifer Miller; Shilane; Turner; - * [UNPUBLISHED]

Rakestraw; DeCastro; Dana Meyer; *

Don -; Karen Jacobi; CMS, Inc.; *

Beverly Thompson, R.N.; Nancy *

Schierding; Elizabeth Conley, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 27, 2007

Filed: July 2, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Missouri inmate Lisa Leach filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

the district court dismissed one defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and later

dismissed the entire suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Leach appeals.

We grant Leach’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and leave the feecollection details to the district court. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85

(8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). After careful review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d

Appellate Case: 06-3445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2007 Entry ID: 3324838
-2-

781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissal);

Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of

review for application of Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)), we affirm in part and

reverse in part. 

Specifically, we find that the section 1915A dismissal of the Missouri

Department of Corrections (MDOC) Legal Department was proper. See Barket, Levy

& Fine, Inc. v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F.2d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir. 1991)

(agency exercising state power is not “‘person’” subject to § 1983 suit). We also find

that the district court properly dismissed the claim against Dr. DeCastro, because

Leach did not contest defendants’ assertion that the exhausted grievance in the record

preceded the treatment from Dr. De Castro underlying the instant complaint. See

Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 918-19, 923 (2007) (unexhausted claims cannot be

brought in court or considered). While the allegations arose from the allegedly

ongoing failure to provide proper care for Leach’s back pain, according to Leach’s

complaint allegations the failures attributed to Dr. De Castro related to different time

periods, to care received at a different prison, and to different wrongs. Similarly,

according to Leach’s complaint, the alleged actions of Nurse Beverly Thompson arose

after the grievance was exhausted. 

The Supreme Court has clarified, however, that a lawsuit should not be

dismissed in its entirety merely because some claims are unexhausted, see Jones, 127

S. Ct. at 923-26 (rejecting total-exhaustion rule), and the remaining defendants should

not have been dismissed. First, Superintendent Steven Moore, Karen Diegelman, and

Jennifer Miller did not move to dismiss for failure to exhaust, and thus they should not

have been dismissed on that basis. See Nerness, 401 F.3d at 876 (PLRA’s exhaustion

requirement is affirmantive defense that defendant has burden to plead and prove);

Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 918-922 (confirming that failure to exhaust is affirmative defense).

Appellate Case: 06-3445 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2007 Entry ID: 3324838
-3-

Second, the court was not provided with the necessary information to determine

whether Nurse Dana Meyer and Dr. Elizabeth Conley were named in the initial

grievance that was exhausted, and if they were not, whether the omission made a

difference under MDOC’s policy on exhausting administrative remedies. See AbdulMuhammad v. Kempker, 486 F.3d 444, 446 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citing Jones

v. Bock for propositions that exhaustion is not necessarily inadequate merely because

individual later sued was not named in inmate’s grievance, and that prison’s

requirements, not PLRA, define boundaries of proper exhaustion). 

Finally, although Nancy Schierding, Karen Jacobi, and Drs. Shilane, Turner,

and Rakestraw were not served, the complaint was dismissed before 120 days had

passed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing for dismissal of complaint without

prejudice if service is not made within 120 days), so Leach should be afforded the

opportunity to serve these defendants on remand. 

Accordingly, we reverse except as to the MDOC Legal Department, Dr.

DeCastro, and Nurse Thompson, and we remand for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3445 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/02/2007 Entry ID: 3324838