Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00450/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00450-0/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

CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-450-WC

) [WO]

)

CURTIS PRITTCHERT, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Christopher Harris ["Harris"], an indigent inmate,

challenges the medical treatment provided to him for an issue with rectal prolapse in

February of 2012 and general conditions at the Bullock County Jail. Doc. No. 1 at 2-5.

Harris seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and compensatory damages for the

alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Id. at 4.

The defendantsfiled a specialreport and supporting evidentiarymaterials addressing

Harris' claims for relief. In these documents, the defendants adamantly deny they acted in

violation of Harris' constitutional rights. In addition, the defendants assert that the

complaint is due to be dismissed because prior to filing this cause of action Harris failed

to properly exhaust an administrative remedy available to him at the Bullock County Jail

with respect to the claims presented in the complaint. Defendants' Special Report - Doc.

Case 2:12-cv-00450-WC Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 7
No. 23 at 4-6. The defendants base their exhaustion defense on the plaintiff's failure to file

a grievance regarding the claims pending before this court as allowed by the jail's

grievance procedure before seeking relief from this court.

"[A]n exhaustion defense ... 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." Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1374-1375 (11th Cir.

2008) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, the court will treat the defendants' report

as a motion to dismiss.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Eleventh Circuit has described the analytical framework of a federal court's

inquiry into exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ["PLRA"] as follows:

[T]he 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). . . .

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)."

2

Case 2:12-cv-00450-WC Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 2 of 7
Myles v. Miami-Dade County Correctional and Rehabilitation Dept., 476 F. App'x 364,

366 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished decision).

As instructed by the Eleventh Circuit, this court is obliged to "resolve this issue

first." Id. Upon review of the undisputed facts of this case as evidenced by the evidentiary

materialsfiled bythe defendants, the court concludesthat the defendants' motion to dismiss

is due to be granted.

III. DISCUSSION

Harris challenges conditions of confinement at the Bullock County Jail. In response

to the claims presented in the complaint, the defendants deny Harris' allegations and

likewise maintain that this case is subject to dismissal because Harris failed to exhaust the

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

required by the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

The PLRA 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 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 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

3

Case 2:12-cv-00450-WC Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 3 of 7
applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or

particular episodes, and whether they allege 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 (2006). Moreover, "the PLRA exhaustion 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." 548 U.S. at 90-91, 93. The 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 procedurally defective administrative grievance or

appeal[,]" or by effectively bypassing the administrative process simply by waiting until

the grievance procedure is no longer available to her. 548 U.S. at 83-84; Johnson v.

Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that inmate who files an untimely

4

Case 2:12-cv-00450-WC Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 4 of 7
grievance or simply spurns the 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. App'x

81, 83 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (emphasis added).

The record before the court establishes that the Bullock County Jail provides an

administrative remedy for inmate complaintsin the formof an inmate grievance procedure.

Defendants' Exhibit E - Doc. No. 23-5 at 2. The grievance procedure allows an inmate to

submit grievances to jail personnel with respect to matters/conditions occurring at the

Bullock County Jail. Id. at 2. The relevant portion of the grievance procedure provides

that "[a]n inmate wishing to file a grievance will be provided with an Inmate Grievance

Form upon request. The jail administrator or [a] correction officer will then receive

completed Grievance Forms and an attempt to resolve the grievance will be made by the

jail administrator. . . . If the jail administrator cannot resolve the grievance[], then it will

be forwarded to the Bullock County Sheriff to be resolved. . . . The decision of the

Detention Facility Administrator may be appealed by the inmate in writing to the Sheriff

of Bullock County within seventy-two (72) hours of receipt of the grievance decision."

Id.

On September 16, 2014, the court entered an order which provided Harris an

opportunity to file a response to the arguments set forth by the defendants in which he was

5

Case 2:12-cv-00450-WC Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 5 of 7
advised to "specifically address the defendants' assertion[] that ... [h]is claims are due to

be dismissed because he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies asrequired

by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act" ... prior to filing this federal

civil action. Doc. No. 25 at 1. The time allowed Harris to file his response expired on

October 1, 2014. As of the present date, Harris has filed no response to this order. The

court therefore concludes that the claims presented in this cause of action are subject to

dismissal. Ngo, 548 U.S. at 87-94.

It is undisputed that Harris failed to properly exhaust an administrative remedy

available to him at the Bullock County Jail prior to seeking federal relief, a precondition

to proceeding in this court on his claims. Specifically, Harris did not submit any grievance

related to the instant claims for relief as permitted by the jail's grievance procedure before

he filed this cause of action. This fact is the sole pertinent factor in "determining whether

[Harris] has satisfied the PLRA's exhaustion requirement." Smith, 491 F. App'x at 83. In

addition, Harris has presented nothing to justify his failure to exhaust the jail's grievance

procedure.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. The defendants' motion to dismiss is 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 BullockCounty Jail prior to filing thisfederal

6

Case 2:12-cv-00450-WC Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 6 of 7
civil action.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the provisions

of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) due to the plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative

remedy available to him at the Bullock County Jail.

A separate order of Final Judgement will accompany this memorandum opinion.

Done this 20th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 2:12-cv-00450-WC Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 7 of 7