Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00803/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00803-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

This section provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section

1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility

until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Defendants Lockhart, Stewart, and Morgan

assert that Plaintiff failed to pursue the administrative remedies available to him at the Chambers County Jail with

respect to the claims presented in the instant complaint. (Doc. Nos. 31, 32.) Specifically, these Defendants state

that the Chambers County Jail provides administrative remedies to persons confined in the facility by way of a

grievance procedure and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust these available remedies. (Id.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

COREY JERMAINE HUGULEY *

#262 429

Plaintiff, *

v. * 3:10-CV-803-TMH

 (WO) 

SID LOCKHART, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _____________________________

ORDER

The Magistrate Judge has reviewed the answers, written reports, and supporting

evidentiary materials filed by Defendants (Doc. Nos. 26, 31, 32) and determined that Plaintiff

should file a response addressing each of the arguments and defenses contained in these

report. In filing his response, Plaintiff shall specifically address:

1. Defendants Lockhart’s, Stewart’s, and Morgan’s argument that he has failed to

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).1 Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct.

1819, 1825 n.6 (2001) (“Congress has provided in § 1997(e)(a) that an inmate must exhaust

Case 3:10-cv-00803-TMH-SRW Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 4
2

irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative remedies.”);

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (“[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies

to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular

episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.”); Woodford v. Ngo,

548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2387 (2006) (“[T]he PLRA exhaustion requirement requires

proper exhaustion.”). “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 2386.

2. Defendant Lett's assertion that the complaint fails to establish that this defendant

in any way acted in violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that on or before February 22, 2011 Plaintiff shall file a response to

Defendants' answers and written reports. If Plaintiff fails to file a response as required by

this order, the court will treat this failure to respond as an abandonment of the claims

set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action. Moreover, Plaintiff

is specifically cautioned that if he fails to file a response in compliance with the

directives of this order the undersigned will recommend that this case be dismissed for

Case 3:10-cv-00803-TMH-SRW Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 4
2

Thus, in preparing a response to the special reports filed by Defendant Plaintiff should refer to the

requirements of Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing made under oath or on affirmation before a notary public

or other authorized officer. The affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, set forth such facts as would

be admissible in evidence, and show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated

in the affidavit.

4

If Plaintiff is unable to present, by affidavit, facts essential to justify his opposition to Defendants'

reports, then Plaintiff must file a sworn statement as to why he or she is unable to do so.

3

such failure. In addition, if Plaintiff fails to respond to the written reports with respect

to each of the claims raised in his complaint, the court will treat this failure as an

abandonment of these claims and shall proceed as justice requires.

As indicated herein, at some time in the future the court may treat Defendants' reports

and Plaintiff's response(s) as a dispositive motion and response.2

 Thus, in filing a response

to Defendants' reports Plaintiff should not rely only on his or her unsworn pleadings but

should respond by filing sworn affidavits,3

 or other evidentiary materials developed through

discovery or other appropriate means and which set forth specific facts demonstrating there

is a genuine issue of material fact for trial in this case. Failure to file sworn affidavits or

other evidentiary materials may result in this court accepting Defendants’ evidence as the

truth.4

 If documents are referred to in the opposing affidavits and have not been previously

filed with the court, sworn or certified copies of those papers must be attached to the

affidavits or served with them. 

The parties are hereby notified that, unless within ten (10) days from the date of this

order a party files a response in opposition which presents sufficient legal cause why such

Case 3:10-cv-00803-TMH-SRW Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 4
4

action should not be undertaken, upon the expiration of the time for Plaintiff to file a

response as allowed by this order, the court may at any time thereafter and without further

notice to the parties (1) treat the special reports and any supporting evidentiary materials as

motions for summary judgment and (2) after considering any response as allowed by this

order, rule on the motions for summary judgment in accordance with the law. 

Failure to follow the requirements of this order about the proper way to respond to

Defendants' reports may result in a recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that final

judgment be entered in favor of Defendants without there being an evidentiary hearing. 

Plaintiff is advised that if he asserts compliance with the county jail's grievance

procedures he must submit relevant evidentiary materials in support of this assertion

showing that he complied with each step of the grievance procedure. His mere conclusory

allegation of exhaustion will be insufficient to defeat Defendants' argument. 

DONE, this 31st day of January 2011.

 /s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00803-TMH-SRW Document 33 Filed 01/31/11 Page 4 of 4