Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02746/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02746-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2746

___________

Mark Anthony Harris, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Mike Kemna; Amy Gertz; Jean Ann *

Johnson; Heather Townsend; Mark *

Parkhurst; Travis Plowman; Ruby *

Wright; Judy Huff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2005

Filed: November 29, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MAGILL, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri state prisoner Mark Harris appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against numerous prison officials. Harris alleged that prison

officials failed to follow prison disciplinary regulations in violation of his due process

Appellate Case: 05-2746 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2005 Entry ID: 1979787
-2-

rights and that his sentence in disciplinary segregation violated his Eighth Amendment

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we note that defendants properly raised

a 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) lack-of-exhaustion affirmative defense, see Nerness v.

Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (Prison Litigation Reform

Act’s exhaustion requirement is affirmative defense that defendant has burden to plead

and prove), and the record contains no indication that Harris exhausted prison

remedies as to his Eighth Amendment claim. See Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d

1141, 1143 (8th Cir. 2003) (when multiple prison-condition claims have been joined,

§ 1997e(a) requires that all available prison grievance remedies be exhausted as to all

claims).

Accordingly, we affirm on the ground that Harris had failed to exhaust his

Eighth Amendment claim at the time of filing. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624,

627 (8th Cir. 2003) (if exhaustion is not completed at time of filing, dismissal is

mandatory). We also modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See Calico Trailer

Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (1998) (affirming dismissal for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but modifying to be without prejudice).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2746 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2005 Entry ID: 1979787