Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00270/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00270-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JACK A. DAVIS, #182448, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-270-MHT

)

CHRIS WEST, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Jack A. Davis ("Davis"), an inmate currently

incarcerated at the Kilby Correctional Facility, challenges conditions of confinement to

which he was subjected during a prior term of incarceration at the Lowndes County Jail.

The defendantsfiled a specialreport and supporting evidentiarymaterials addressing

Davis' claims for relief. In these documents, the defendants argue that this case is due to

be dismissed because prior to filing this cause of action Davis failed to properly exhaust

an administrative remedy available to him at the Lowndes County Jail with respect to the

claims presented in the complaint. Defendants' Special Report - Doc. No. 21 at 3-5. The

defendants base their exhaustion defense on the plaintiff's failure to file a grievance

regarding the claims raised in the complaint.

"[A]n exhaustion defense ... is not ordinarily the proper subject for a summary

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 10
judgment [motion]; instead, itshould be raised in a motion to dismiss, or be treated assuch

if raised in a motion for summary judgment." Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1374-1375

(11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted); Trias v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 587

Fed. Appx. 531, 534 (11th Cir. 2014) (District court properly construed defendant's

"motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismissfor failure to exhaust administrative

remedies...."). Therefore, the court will treat the defendants' report as a motion to dismiss.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In addressing the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e with respect to exhaustion, the

Eleventh Circuit has

recognized that "[t]he plain language of th[is] statute makes exhaustion a

precondition to filing an action in federal court." Higginbottom v. Carter,

223 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (quoting Freeman v.

Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 643-44 (6th Cir. 1999)). This means that "until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted," a prisoner is

precluded from filing suit in federal court. See id. (affirming dismissal of

prisoner's civil rights suit for failure to satisfy the mandatory exhaustion

requirements of the PLRA); Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279, 1286 (11th

Cir. 1999) ("reaffirm[ing] that section 1997e(a) imposes a mandatory

requirement on prisoners seeking judicial relief to exhaust their

administrative remedies" before filing suit in federal court), modified on

other grounds, 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Miller v. Tanner,

196 F.3d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that under the PLRA's

amendmentsto § 1997e(a), "[a]n inmate incarcerated in a state prison ... must

first comply with the grievance procedures established by the state

department of corrections before filing a federal lawsuit under section

1983"); Harper v. Jenkin, 179 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)

(affirming dismissal of prisoner's civil suit for failure to satisfy the

mandatory exhaustion requirements of § 1997e(a)); Alexander v. Hawk, 159

F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 1998) (affirming dismissal of prisoner's Bivens

2

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 10
action under § 1997e(a) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior

to filing suit in federal court).

Leal v. Georgia Dept. of Corrections, 254 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001). The Court

has therefore determined that "the question of exhaustion under the PLRA [is] a 'threshold

matter' that [federal courts must] address before considering the merits of the case.

Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004). Because exhaustion is

mandated by the statute, [a court has] no discretion to waive this requirement. Alexander

v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1325-26 (11th Cir. 1998)." Myles v. Miami-Dade County

Correctional and Rehabilitation Dept., 476 Fed. Appx. 364, 366 (11th Cir. 2012). Based

on the foregoing, the court will "resolve this issue first." Id.

"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 'specific findings in order to resolve the disputed factual issues related to

exhaustion.' Id. (citing Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1373-74, 1376)." Myles, 476 Fed. Appx. at

366. Consequently, a district court "may resolve disputed factual issues where necessary

3

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 3 of 10
to the disposition of a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust [without a hearing]. See

[Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082]. The judge properlymay consider facts outside of the pleadings

to resolve a factual dispute as to exhaustion where doing so does not decide the merits, and

the parties have a sufficient opportunity to develop the record. Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1376."

Trias, 587 Fed. Appx at 535. Based on the foregoing, the Eleventh Circuit specifically

rejected the argument that "disputed facts as to exhaustion should be decided by a jury."

Id. at 3.

Upon review of the complaint, the defendants' special report and the evidentiary

materials filed in support thereof, the court concludes that the defendants' motion to

dismiss is due to be granted.

III. DISCUSSION

Davis challenges conditions to which he was subjected during a previous term of

confinement at the Lowndes County Jail. In response to the complaint, the defendants

assert that this case is subject to dismissal because Davis failed to exhaust the

administrative remedy provided at the Lowndes County Jail prior to filing this complaint

as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

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

4

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 4 of 10
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

(11th Cir. 1998); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006). Moreover, "the

PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion." Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93,

126 S.Ct. at 2387 (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

5

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 5 of 10
appendage." 548 U.S. at 90-91, 93, 126 S.Ct. at 2386-2387. The Supreme Court reasoned

that because proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary an inmate cannot

"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. 548 U.S. at 83-84, 126 S.Ct. at 2382; Bryant, 530 F3d at 1378

("To exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with the PLRA, prisoners must

'properly take each step within the administrative process.'"); Johnson v. Meadows, 418

F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 2005) (inmate who files an untimely grievance orsimply spurns

the administrative process until it is no longer available fails to satisfy the exhaustion

requirement of the PLRA); Higginbottom, 223 F.3d at 1261 (inmate's belief that

administrative procedures are futile or needless does not excuse the exhaustion

requirement). "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 Fed. Appx. 81, 83 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (emphasis

added).

It is undisputed that the Lowndes County Jail provides an administrative remedy for

inmate complaints in the form of an inmate grievance procedure. Defendants' Exhibit B -

Doc. No. 21-5 at 21. The grievance procedure allows an inmate to submit grievances to

6

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 6 of 10
jail personnel with respect to matters/conditions occurring at the jail. The grievance

procedure provides that an inmate "must first attempt to resolve a grievance on a informal

basis" and, if unsuccessful, may then file a formal grievance on a request form on which

the inmate identifies the form as a grievance. Id. In addition, the inmate must

[d]escribe the situation and nature of the grievance as completely as possible,

and submit the form to Jail Staff. It will be forwarded to the Jail Sergeant for

review. The Jail Sergeant will determine whether the grievance has merit,

what steps (if any) will be taken, and respond to the inmate. If the inmate is

notsatisfied with the decision, then he/she may file and "appeal" with the Jail

Captain. The Captain will further review the matter, make a determination,

and respond to the inmate. Group grievances or grievances submitted on

behalf of other inmates are not permitted. Grievances or appeals containing

threats, profanity or provocative language are not accepted; these are

discarded. Abuse of the grievance process or employing it to create a

nuisance will not be tolerated.

Id.

Upon review of the special report filed by the defendants, the court entered an order

which provided Davis an opportunity to file a response to the exhaustion defense in which

he was advised to address "the defendants' argument that his claims are due to be dismissed

because he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies asrequired by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a)" prior to filing this federal civil action. Order of July 28, 2015 - Doc. No. 22

at 1 (footnote omitted). The time allowed Davis to file his response to this order expired

on August 14, 2015. Id. at 2. As of the present date, Davis has filed no response to this

order.

7

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 7 of 10
The evidentiary materials filed by the defendants demonstrate that Davis failed to

properly exhaust the administrative grievance procedure available at the Lowndes County

Jail. Specifically, Davis did not file a grievance regarding the claims made the basis of the

instant complaint prior to filing this case. Davis does not dispute his failure to submit a

grievance addressing the claims presented to this court.

Based on the evidence contained in the record, the court finds that Davis failed to

properly exhaust the grievance procedure provided at the Lowndes County Jail.

Specifically, Davis did not file a grievance in accordance with the jail's grievance

procedure and has presented nothing to justify his failure to exhaust this administrative

remedy. It is likewise clear that access to the grievance procedure ceased upon Davis'

transfer to the state prison system and the administrative remedy provided by the

defendantsistherefore no longer available to Davis. Under these circumstances, dismissal

with prejudice is appropriate. Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1375 n.1; Johnson, 418 F.3d at 1157;

Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d 707, 710 (5th Cir. 1995) ("Without the prospect of a dismissal

with prejudice, a prisoner could evade the exhaustion requirement by filing no

administrative grievance or by intentionally filing an untimely one, thereby foreclosing

administrative remedies and gaining access to a federal forum without exhausting

administrative remedies."); Berry v. Kerik, 366 F.3d 85, 88 (2nd Cir. 2004) (footnotes

omitted)(inmate's "federal lawsuits ... properlydismissed with prejudice" where previously

8

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 8 of 10
available administrative remedies had become unavailable).

IV. CONCLUSION

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

1. The defendants' motion to dismiss be GRANTED to the extent the defendants

seek dismissal of this case due to the plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an

administrative remedy available to him at the Lowndes County Jail prior to initiating this

cause of action.

2. This case be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for the plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy

previously available to him at the Lowndes County Jail.

3. No costs be taxed herein.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before November 2, 2015 the parties may file objections to

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

Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be

considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not

a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation

shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in

9

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 9 of 10
the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report

accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon 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 decisions of the

former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 19th day of October, 2015.

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 10/19/15 Page 10 of 10