Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01013/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01013-0/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. 06-1013

___________

Jimmy G. Nixon, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Linda Sanders, Warden FCI - Forrest *

City; Rebecca Lewis, Chaplain, FCI - *

Forrest City; Howard Collier, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Chaplain, FCI - Forrest City, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2007

Filed: August 17, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Jimmy G. Nixon, Sr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, his action filed pursuant to

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971). We reverse and remand.

After Nixon filed this action complaining of religious harassment, defendants

sought dismissal or summary judgment based on Nixon’s failure to exhaust his

Appellate Case: 06-1013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2007 Entry ID: 3342470
1

These included Nixon’s September 14, 2004 letter to the warden and October

13, 2004 letter (recipient unnoted); “inmate request” forms; a sworn statement; and

additional letters to the warden and others.

-2-

administrative remedies. In support, defendants submitted prison records and an

attorney’s declaration. Nixon responded, and the magistrate judge recommended

dismissal of the complaint, finding that it was clear from defendants’ papers, and

Nixon’s lack of proof to the contrary, that Nixon had not fully exhausted his

administrative remedies. Nixon did not file objections, and the district court adopted

the magistrate judge’s report and dismissed Nixon’s complaint without prejudice for

failure to exhaust. This appeal followed. 

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions

of law de novo, see Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141, 1143 (8th Cir. 2003), but

because Nixon did not object to the magistrate judge’s report, any error is not

reversible unless it is plain error, cf. Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir.

1994) (reviewing magistrate judge’s findings of fact for plain error where habeas

petitioner failed to file objections to report and recommendation). 

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner must exhaust all available

administrative remedies before a civil action can be brought with respect to prison

conditions. See Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam);

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (federal inmates suing under Bivens must

first exhaust administrative remedies). Administrative exhaustion is an affirmative

defense that defendants have the burden to plead and prove. See Jones v. Bock, 127

S. Ct. 910, 919-22 (2007). 

We conclude that Nixon raised a factual dispute as to whether he was denied

the necessary forms to grieve the religious harassment that was the subject of his

Bivens action. In various submissions,1

 Nixon complained to prison officials that staff

members were ignoring his BP-81⁄2 grievance forms--the initial step in the grievance

Appellate Case: 06-1013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2007 Entry ID: 3342470
-3-

process--and were refusing to provide him with BP-9, -10, and -11 forms which are

needed to proceed through the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative-remedy process. See

28 C.F.R. § 542.10-.18; Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (prisoner’s

allegations that prison officials denied his requests for grievance forms could raise

inference that he was prevented from utilizing prison’s administrative remedies;

remedy that prison officials prevent prisoner from utilizing is not “available” under

§ 1997e(a)).

We further find that the error was plain, and in the interest of the fairness,

integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings, we exercise our discretion to

order correction of the error. See Allen v. Entergy Corp., Inc., 193 F.3d 1010, 1014

(8th Cir. 1999) (discussing plain error). Therefore, we remand for a determination

whether--in light of Nixon’s allegations that the prison withheld grievance forms--the

grievance procedure in this case was “available” within the meaning of section

1997e(a) to administratively exhaust Nixon’s religious-harassment claim. See Miller,

247 F.3d at 740. 

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and we remand this matter to the district

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1013 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2007 Entry ID: 3342470