Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01872/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01872-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1872

___________

Malik Abdul-Muhammad; Rashid *

Ash-Sheikh Junaid, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Gary Kempker; Dora B. Schriro; * District Court for the

Steve Long; Winfrey Dickerson; * Eastern District of Missouri.

Allen D. Luebbers; Pat Smith; *

Donna Y. McCondichie; Charles R. *

Dwyer; Thomas King; Paul Powell; *

George Lombardi; Don Roper, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2006

Filed: June 13, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Missouri inmates Malik Abdul-Muhammad and Rashid Ash-Sheikh Junaid

(collectively, "the plaintiffs") appeal the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

for failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-1872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055592
1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

The plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged a number of policies at the Potosi

Correctional Center through the prison's grievance process. They later filed this

action, challenging not only the policies previously grieved through the prison

process, but also alleging that the individual defendants retaliated against them for

filing an earlier lawsuit, "unlawfully used the grievance procedure to suppress the

Muslim community," and engaged in a "conspiracy to conceal the violations of the

plaintiffs['] civil rights." App. of Appellees at 15–16. The plaintiffs sought damages

as well as injunctive relief.

The District Court1

 dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding that

"[i]n the absence of specific notice" to the individual defendants during the prison

grievance process, "the plaintiffs have failed to completely exhaust their claims as to

each defendant named in the complaint." Mem. and Order of Feb. 8, 2005, at 5. In

addition, the District Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all

available administrative remedies with respect to all of their claims before filing their

complaint in federal court. See id. at 6.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue exclusively that they were not required by

§ 1997e(a) to provide specific notice to each defendant during the prison grievance

process because all defendants received adequate notice of the allegations "by virtue

of their employment and association with the Department of Corrections." Appellants'

Brief at 8. According to the plaintiffs, this notice was sufficient to provide the

defendants with an opportunity to address the plaintiffs' allegations internally and

thus satisfied § 1997e(a)'s requirement that all available administrative remedies be

exhausted prior to filing suit in federal court. 

Appellate Case: 05-1872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055592
-3-

In several unpublished opinions, our Court has affirmed the dismissal of § 1983

complaints for failure to exhaust pursuant to § 1997e(a) based on the inmate's failure

to identify by name during the grievance process each individual defendant he later

sued in federal court. See, e.g., Dodson v. Norris, No. 04-3724, 2006 WL 399108 (8th

Cir. Feb. 22, 2006) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of complaint for failure to

exhaust when plaintiff did not file grievances against certain defendants named in

complaint); Coleman v. Kemna, 83 F. App'x 140, 141 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)

(affirming dismissal of complaint when plaintiff did not file a grievance against a

prison official named in complaint); Grady v. Cross, 76 F. App'x 760, 761 (8th Cir.

2003) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal because plaintiff "did not file and exhaust a

grievance against . . . a named defendant" before filing complaint); Love v. May, 63

F. App'x 282, 283 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal because plaintiff

did not file grievances against three defendants named in complaint). These

unpublished opinions, though not precedential, have persuasive value, and we are

persuaded to hold that a prisoner who files a complaint in federal court asserting

multiple claims against multiple prison officials based on multiple prison grievances

must have exhausted each claim against each defendant in at least one of the

grievances. See Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 505 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that

§ 1997e(a) requires an inmate to identify in his grievance each individual he intends

to sue). Dismissal of the complaint on this ground in the present case was proper.

In addition, when an inmate joins multiple prison-condition claims in a single

complaint, as in this case, § 1997e(a) requires that the inmate exhaust all available

prison grievance remedies as to all of his claims prior to filing suit in federal court.

Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). If all available

administrative remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims before the suit is

filed, dismissal of the complaint is mandatory. Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627

(8th Cir. 2003). 

Appellate Case: 05-1872 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055592
-4-

A careful review of the record in this case supports the District Court's

conclusion that the plaintiffs did not pursue all of their claims through the prison

grievance process prior to filing their complaint in federal court. The District Court

determined that the plaintiffs' allegation that the defendants "violated the plaintiffs'

constitutional rights by using the grievance procedure in an unlawful manner" was "an

entirely separate claim that ha[d] yet to be exhausted." Mem. and Order of Feb. 8,

2005, at 6. We agree.

For the reasons stated, the District Court's dismissal of the complaint without

prejudice is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1872 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055592