Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02271/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02271-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2271

___________

Charles B. Smith, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Unknown Corrections Officer, MSP; * Appeal from the United States

Gary Campbell, Dr., CMS; Elizabeth * District Court for the

Conley, Dr., CMS; Dora Schriro, Dir., * Eastern District of Missouri.

MDOC; Randee Kaiser, Dir., CMS; *

Dave Dormire, Supt., MSP; Deborah *

Steinmann, RN, CMS; Lance Luria, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Dir., CMS; Unknown Williams; *

Denise Ponder, RN, CMS; Jacinda *

Burch, Reg. Adm., CMS; Steve Long, *

Asst. Dir., MDOC; Jacques Lamour, *

Dr., CMS, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2006

Filed: September 14, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-2271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2006 Entry ID: 2089155
-2-

Missouri inmate Charles B. Smith appeals from an order of the district court

dismissing his complaint without prejudice.

Smith filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations.

Defendants Dr. Elizabeth Conley, Dr. Gary Campbell, Deborah Steinmann, and Dave

Dormire moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. The district court granted defendants’ motions, noting that

Smith’s complaint did not specifically allege full exhaustion of his administrative

remedies as to each defendant, and that he did not demonstrate exhaustion of

administrative remedies.

An inmate’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required

by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is an affirmative defense, which need not be pleaded by

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

We also note that it is not apparent from the face of the complaint or from the record

that Smith had not met the applicable exhaustion requirements when he filed his suit.

Cf. Abdul-Muhammad v. Kempker, 450 F.3d 350, 352 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming

dismissal where careful review of record of case supports district court’s conclusion

that administrative remedies had not been exhausted before complaint was filed);

Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (while statute of

limitations is affirmative defense, district court may properly dismiss in forma

pauperis complaint before service when it is apparent from face of complaint that

statute of limitations has run).

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order, and remand to the district

court for further proceedings.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2006 Entry ID: 2089155