Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00342/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00342-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JULIUS BOWE, #124 850, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-CV-342-WHA

) [WO]

DR. COPELAND, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Draper

Correctional Facility ["Draper"], challenges the adequacy of medical treatment provided

to him regarding an ongoing severe skin infection which he contends causes him

continuing pain and discomfort. Plaintiff names Doctor Mendez and Doctor Copeland as

the defendants in this cause of action.

Defendants filed an answer, special report, supplemental special report, and

supporting evidentiary materials addressing Plaintiff's claims for relief. Doc. Nos. 17, 18,

22. In these documents, Defendants assert that the complaint is due to be dismissed

because Plaintiff failed to exhaust an administrative remedy available to him through the

prison system's medical care provider, Corizon, Inc., prior to initiation of this case. In

addition, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff received appropriate medical treatment during

the time relevant to the matters alleged in the instant complaint. See Doc. No. 17, Mendez

Case 2:14-cv-00342-WHA-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 8
Affidavit & Exh. A.

Pursuant to the orders entered in this case and governing case law, the court deems

it appropriate to treat Defendants' report as a motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 21; Bryant v.

Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1375 (11thCir. 2008)(citations omitted) ("[A]n exhaustion defense --

as in [this] case -- is not ordinarily the proper subject for a summary judgment; instead, it

'should be raised in a motion to dismiss, or be treated as such if raised in a motion for

summary judgment.'"). The court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file a response to

Defendants' motion in which he was advised to "specifically address Defendants' argument

that he [] failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Id. at 1 (footnote omitted).

Plaintiff filed no response. Thus, this case is now pending on Defendants' motion to

dismiss. Upon consideration of motion and the evidentiary materials filed in support

thereof, the court concludes that Defendants' motion to dismiss is due to be granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"When deciding whether a prisoner has exhausted his remedies, the court should first

consider the plaintiff's and the defendants' versions of the facts, and if they conflict, take the

plaintiff's version of the facts as true. 'If in that light, the defendant is entitled to have the

complaint dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it must be dismissed.' 

Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Bryant, 530 F.3d at

1373–74). If the complaint is not subject to dismissal at this step, then the court should make

2

Case 2:14-cv-00342-WHA-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 8
'specific findings in order to resolve the disputed factual issues related to exhaustion.' Id.

(citing Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1373–74, 1376)." Myles v. Miami-Dade County Correctional and

Rehabilitation Dept., 476 Fed.Appx. 364, 366 (11th Cir. 2012). Defendants bear the burden

of proof during this second step. Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff challenges the adequacy of medical care that he received while incarcerated

at Draper for an ongoing skin problem which began in April of 2010. Specifically, Plaintiff

maintains that Defendants repeatedly denied himaccess to a free-world medical provider and

failed to prescribe appropriate and effective medication for his condition. Doc. No. 1. In

response to the complaint, Defendants deny that they provided Plaintiff with

constitutionally inadequate medical care and argue that this case is subject to dismissal

because Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the institutional

medical care provider prior to filing this complaint as required by the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). As explained, federal law directs this court to treat

Defendants' response as a motion to dismissfor failure to exhaust an administrative remedy

and allows the court to look beyond the pleadings to relevant evidentiary materials in

deciding the issue of proper exhaustion. Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1375.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act compels exhaustion of available administrative

remedies before a prisoner can seek relief in federal court on a § 1983 complaint.

Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) states that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to

3

Case 2:14-cv-00342-WHA-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 8
prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctionalfacility untilsuch administrative remedies

as are available are exhausted." "Congress has provided in § 1997(e)(a) that an inmate

must exhaust irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative

remedies." Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001). "[T]he PLRA's exhaustion

requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general

circumstances or particular episodes, and whethertheyallege excessive force orsome other

wrong." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion of all available

administrative remedies is a precondition to litigation and a federal court cannot waive the

exhaustion requirement. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741; Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1325

(11 Cir. 1998); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). Moreover, "the PLRA exhaustion

th

requirement requires proper exhaustion." Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93 (emphasis added).

"Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical

procedural rules [as a precondition to filing suit in federal court] because no adjudicative

system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the courts of

its proceedings.... Construing § 1997e(a) to require proper exhaustion ... fits with the

general scheme of the PLRA, whereas [a contrary] interpretation [allowing an inmate to

bring suit in federal court once administrative remedies are no longer available] would turn

that provision into a largely useless appendage." Id. at 90-91, 93. The Court reasoned that

because proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary an inmate cannot

4

Case 2:14-cv-00342-WHA-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 8
"satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement ... by filing an untimely

or otherwise procedurallydefective administrative grievance or appeal[,]" or byeffectively

bypassing the administrative processsimply by waiting until the grievance procedure is no

longer available to him. Id. at 83-84; Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir.

2005) (inmate who files an untimely grievance or simply spurnsthe administrative process

until it is no longer available fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA).

"The only facts pertinent to determining whether a prisoner has satisfied the PLRA's

exhaustion requirement are those that existed when he filed his original complaint." Smith

v. Terry, 491 F. Appx. 81, 83 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Even where an inmate

litigant "attempt[s] to amend or supplement his original complaint" regarding efforts at

subsequent exhaustion, it does "not change the important historical fact: his administrative

remedies were unexhausted when he filed his original complaint. Therefore, he cannot

cure the exhaustion defect." Id.

The record is undisputed that the health care provider for the Alabama Department

of Corrections provides a grievance procedure for inmate complaints related to the

provision of medical treatment. Doc. No.17, Mendez Affidavit; Doc. No. 22, Ellis Affidavit.

Defendants submitted evidence which reflects that when inmates are processed into the

custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections they are informed of the process and

procedure for obtaining medical care and medication and are also educated about the

availability of the medical grievance process whereby they may voice complaints regarding

5

Case 2:14-cv-00342-WHA-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/03/14 Page 5 of 8
anymedical treatment sought or received during their incarceration. Inmate grievance forms

are available to inmates at Draper for the purpose of submitting a grievance related to the

provision of health care; inmate grievances are answered within approximately five days of

receipt of the grievance, and the inmate grievance form provides information about how an

inmate may appeal the response he receives to his initial inmate grievance. Id. A written

response to a formal grievance appeal is provided in approximately five days of receipt. Id.

Inmates are provided with a copy of the completed grievance and/or grievance appeal

containing the health service administrator's response. Id. Defendants' evidence reflects that

Plaintiff affixed his signature to a copy of the "Access to Healthcare Services" information

sheet which provides inmates with information regarding how to access the facility's

provision of health care as well as the procedure for submitting an inmate grievance related

to the provision of dental, medical, and mental health care. Doc. No. 22, Ellis Affidavit, Exh.

C. Defendantsstate that a search of Plaintiff's medical records failed to reveal any grievance

filed by Plaintiff during his incarceration at Draper. Doc. No. 17, Mendez Affidavit, Exh.

A; Doc. No. 22, Ellis Affidavit.

The court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the exhaustion defense

raised by Defendants in their motion to dismiss, but he did not do so. Doc. No. 21. It

therefore finds that a grievance system is available at Draper for Plaintiff's claims, but he

failed to exhaust the administrative remedy available to him. The undisputed record before

the court demonstrates that Plaintiff failed to exhaust an administrative remedy available

6

Case 2:14-cv-00342-WHA-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/03/14 Page 6 of 8
to him at Draper regarding his allegation of inadequate medical care prior to seeking

federal relief, a precondition to proceeding in this court on his claims. Specifically, the

court finds that Plaintiff submitted no grievance as permitted by the institution's medical

grievance procedure prior to filing this cause of action. Any grievancesfiled after initiation

of this federal cause of action have no bearing on Plaintiff's proper exhaustion of the

administrative remedy provided by the facility's medical provider. Terry, 491 Fed.Appx.

at 83.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion seeking dismissal for Plaintiff's failure

to exhaust available administrative remedies should be granted, and such dismissal should

be without prejudice. See Ngo, 548 U.S. at 87-94; Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1374-1375

(dismissal for failure to exhaust an administrative remedy when the remedy remains

available is not an adjudication of the merits and is without prejudice);Woodford, 548 U.S.

at 87-94.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants (Doc. No. 17, 22) be GRANTED as

Plaintiff failed to exhaust an administrative remedy available to him at the Draper

Correctional Facility prior to filing this federal civil action;

2. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice against Defendants under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust an administrative remedy.

7

Case 2:14-cv-00342-WHA-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/03/14 Page 7 of 8
3. No costs be taxed.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before October 17, 2014, the parties may file an objection

to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon the grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)

(en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 3rd day of October, 2014.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 2:14-cv-00342-WHA-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/03/14 Page 8 of 8