Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02508/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02508-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gwen Brown
Appellee
John Does
Appellee
Cathy Hicks
Appellee
M. D. Morrison
Appellee
Joseph Stafford
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2508

___________

Joseph Stafford, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Gwen Brown, Case Manager, FCI- *

Forrest City; Cathy Hicks, Camp *

Administrator, FCI-Forrest City; * [UNPUBLISHED]

M. D. Morrison, Warden, FCI-Forrest *

City; John Does, Unknown Named *

Employees, Federal Bureau of Prisons, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 24, 2004

Filed: December 9, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-2508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2004 Entry ID: 1842672 
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

-2-

Federal inmate Joseph Stafford appeals the district court’s1

 Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his action brought under Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Having carefully reviewed the record, see

McAlphin v. Toney, 375 F.3d 753, 754 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (standard of

review), we affirm. 

A prisoner cannot bring a Bivens action involving prison conditions before

exhausting available administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v.

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 532 (2002). We agree with the district court that Stafford

failed to provide proof of exhaustion as to his claim that he was transferred to the

federal correctional institution partly in retaliation for successfully helping other

inmates with legal and administrative matters. See Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d

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

§ 1997e(a)’s plain language requires that available administrative remedies be

exhausted as to all claims). While the grievance he offered contained assertions that

he was transferred because of racial bias, it did not address his allegation about the

transfer occurring due to his law-clerk activities. As to Stafford’s request for leave

to amend, unlike the plaintiff in Kozohorsky, he was not specific enough as to how

he intended to amend his complaint. Cf. Kozohorsky, 332 F.3d at 1143-44 (district

court abused its discretion by implicitly denying motion to amend where requested

amendment would have cured defect necessitating dismissal and not required

additional discovery). 

The district court was thus required to dismiss Stafford’s complaint without

prejudice. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissal

Appellate Case: 04-2508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2004 Entry ID: 1842672 
-3-

required when inmate had not administratively exhausted before filing lawsuit). The

dismissal should not, however, count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g), because Stafford alleged exhaustion in his complaint; we revise the

judgment accordingly. Cf. Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271, 274 (8th Cir. 1996) (per

curiam) (plaintiff who did not allege exhaustion of administrative remedies failed to

state claim). 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2508 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2004 Entry ID: 1842672