Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01891/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01891-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jan Alexander
Appellee
Sylvester Barbee
Appellant
James Blackmon
Appellee
Correctional Medical Services
Appellee
Does
Appellee
Nnamdi Ifediora
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1891

___________

Sylvester Barbee, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Correctional Medical Services; Jan *

Alexander, Medical Director, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Diagnostic Unit, ADC; Nnamdi *

Ifediora, Dr., Diagnostic Unit, ADC; *

James Blackmon, Dr., Cummins Unit, *

ADC; Does, John, Doctor, or Jane, *

Nurse, Correctional Medical *

Services, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 18, 2010

 Filed: August 23, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases filed by Sylvester Barbee, the district court granted

summary judgment to defendants Jan Alexander, Nnamdi Ifediora, and James

Blackmon, and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice; and also dismissed

with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a separate amended complaint against the

Appellate Case: 10-1891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2010 Entry ID: 3695876
-2-

remaining defendants for failure to state a claim for relief. Barbee appeals. We affirm

in part, and vacate and remand in part.

We agree with the district court that the separate amended complaint was

properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781

783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review). However, as to the grant of

summary judgment, see Meuir v. Greene County Jail Employees, 487 F.3d 1115, 1118

(8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court should not

have reached the merits of Barbee’s claims against defendants Alexander, Ifediora,

and Blackmon, who raised as an affirmative defense that Barbee failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (no action may be brought with

respect to prison conditions by prisoner confined in correctional facility until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted). The district court found, and

we agree, that the record supported this affirmative defense. Once the court

determined that the claims were unexhausted, it was required to dismiss them without

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

not completed at time of filing suit, dismissal is mandatory); Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305

F.3d 806, 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (although case went to trial, dismissal of

complaint was required because inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies and

defendants did not waive defense). 

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the amended complaint, see 8th Cir. R.

47B, but we vacate the grant of summary judgment to defendants Alexander, Ifediora,

and Blackmon and remand with instructions to dismiss the claims against these

defendants without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, see

Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (remanding with directions to

dismiss complaint without prejudice where record showed failure to exhaust). We

also deny Barbee’s pending motion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2010 Entry ID: 3695876