Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00030/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00030-5/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

TERRENCE POUNCEY *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 1:11-CV-30-TMH

 (WO)

MAMIE MCCORY, *

Defendant. *

 _____________________________

ORDER

The Magistrate Judge has reviewed the written report and supporting evidentiary

materials filed byDefendant in response to Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 32) and

determined that Plaintiff should file a response addressing each of the arguments and

defenses contained in this report. In filing his response, Plaintiff shall specifically address 

Defendant’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”). Booth v. 1

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 irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered

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

1

1983 of thistitle, 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.” Defendant assertsthat Plaintifffailed to pursue

the administrative remedies available to him at the Dothan City Jail with respect to the claims presented in the

amended complaint. (Doc. No. 32 at pgs. 4-5.) Specifically, Defendant states that the Dothan City Jail provides

administrative remediesto persons confined in the facility by way of a grievance procedure and that Plaintiff has

failed to exhaust properly these available remedies. (Id.)

Case 1:11-cv-00030-TMH-WC Document 33 Filed 10/05/11 Page 1 of 4
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, andwhether theyallege 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 systemcan function effectivelywithout

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 largelyuseless appendage.” 

Id. at 2386.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that on or before October 26, 2011 Plaintiff shall file a response to

Defendant’s written report. 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 such

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

2

Case 1:11-cv-00030-TMH-WC Document 33 Filed 10/05/11 Page 2 of 4
each of the claims raised in his complaint, as amended, 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 Defendant’s report

and Plaintiff's response(s) as a dispositive motion and response. Thus, in filing a response 2

to Defendant’s report Plaintiff should not rely only on his or her unsworn pleadings but

should respond by filing sworn affidavits, or other evidentiarymaterials developed through 3

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 Defendant’s evidence as the

truth. If documents are referred to in the opposing affidavits and have not been previously 4

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

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

Thus, in preparing a response to the special report filed by Defendant Plaintiff should refer to the 2

requirements of Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

3

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.

If Plaintiff is unable to present, by affidavit, facts essential to justify his opposition to Defendant’s 4

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

3

Case 1:11-cv-00030-TMH-WC Document 33 Filed 10/05/11 Page 3 of 4
response as allowed by this order, the court may at any time thereafter and without further

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

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

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

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

Defendant’s report may result in a recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that final

judgment be entered in favor of Defendant 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 Defendant’s argument. 

Done, this 5 day of October 2011. th

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:11-cv-00030-TMH-WC Document 33 Filed 10/05/11 Page 4 of 4