Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02488/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02488-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carol Durham
Appellee
Dante G. Frazier
Appellant
Pottawattamie County Jail
Appellee
William Winfield
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Celeste

F. Bremer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2488

___________

Dante G. Frazier, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

William Winfield; Pottawattamie *

County Jail; Carol Durham; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Pottawattamie County *

Jail Administrator, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 3, 2007

Filed: October 25, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Dante G. Frazier appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing

without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action against employees of the Pottawattamie County Jail (PCJ), where he was held

as a pretrial detainee. 

Appellate Case: 06-2488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2007 Entry ID: 3365891
-2-

This court reviews de novo the application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(PLRA), and for clear error any underlying findings of fact. See Nerness v. Johnson,

401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The prison’s requirements, not the

PLRA, define the boundaries of proper exhaustion. See Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910,

922-23 (2007). We conclude the district court did not err in finding that Frazier failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies. He did not dispute that (1) the grievance

policy directs inmates to write to the County Sheriff or the PCJ Administrator if they

are dissatisfied with PCJ Assistant Administrator Carol Durham’s response to their

grievances, and (2) he did not do so. There is no support for Frazier’s argument that

he was prevented from doing so. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2007 Entry ID: 3365891