Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_07-cv-00451/USCOURTS-almd-1_07-cv-00451-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

CYRUS DESMOND PIERSON *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 1:07-CV-451-WKW

 (WO)

JEFF SHELTON, of the * 

COFFEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT *

Defendant. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Cyrus Pierson [“Pierson”], a county inmate,

challenges actions taken against him during his confinement in the Coffee County Jail.

Pierson seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for the alleged violations of his

constitutional rights. 

Pursuant to the orders of this court, Defendant Shelton filed a written report and

supporting evidentiary materials addressing the claims for relief raised in the complaint. In

this report, Defendant Shelton asserts that this case is due to be dismissed because Pierson

has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Specifically, Defendant Shelton maintains, and

the undisputed evidentiary materials demonstrate, that with respect to the claims presented

Case 1:07-cv-00451-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 08/15/07 Page 1 of 5
2

in the instant complaint, Pierson has failed to completely exhaust the administrative remedies

available to him in the Coffee County Jail via the jail’s inmate grievance procedure. (See

Doc. No. 8 at pgs. 4-7, Exh. T - Moss Affidavit.) In accordance with the order entered on

July 20, 2007 (Doc. No. 9), the court deems it appropriate to treat Defendant Shelton’s

special report as a motion for summary judgment. 

 This case is now pending before the court on Defendant Shelton’s motion for

summary judgment. Upon consideration of such motion and the evidentiary materials filed

in support thereof, the court concludes that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due

to be granted and this case dismissed without prejudice as Plaintiff has failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies.

DISCUSSION

Pierson challenges actions taken against him at the Coffee County Jail. (Doc. No. 1.)

In response to the claims presented in the complaint, Defendant Shelton argues that this case

should be dismissed because Pierson has failed to properly exhaust his administrative

remedies as directed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires 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 until such administrative remedies

Case 1:07-cv-00451-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 5
3

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 applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some 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). Further, the PLRA's exhaustion requirement contains no futility exception

where there is an available inmate grievance procedure. Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727,

733 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3rd Cir. 2003).

The record in this case establishes that the Coffee County Jail provides a grievance

procedure for inmate complaints. The undisputed evidentiary materials submitted by

Defendant Shelton demonstrate that Pierson failed to file any grievance challenging the

actions about which he complains in the instant complaint. The court, therefore, concludes

that the claims for relief presented in this cause of action are subject to dismissal as Pierson

has not yet exhausted his available administrative remedies. 

Case 1:07-cv-00451-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 08/15/07 Page 3 of 5
1

The parties are advised that this Recommendation does not in any way address the merits of

Plaintiff's claims for relief. Consequently, this dismissal has no impact on Plaintiff's ability to pursue his

claims in this court upon his exhaustion of all available administrative remedies or at the time he no longer

has an administrative remedy available to him. 

4

 CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Defendant Shelton’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 8) be GRANTED

to the extent that Defendant Shelton seeks dismissal of this case for Pierson’s failure to

exhaust an available administrative remedy; and

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

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for Pierson’s failure to exhaust an available administrative remedy.1

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before August 27, 2007 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

Case 1:07-cv-00451-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 08/15/07 Page 4 of 5
5

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit 

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done, this 15th day of August 2007.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00451-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 08/15/07 Page 5 of 5