Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01343/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01343-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chryel Binder
Appellee
Kirkpatrick
Appellee
Mark Uner
Appellee
Keith Eugene Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J.

Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1343

___________

Keith Eugene Washington, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Mark Uner, sued as Mark Jeffrey * District of Minnesota.

Uner; Chryel Binder; Kirkpatrick, *

Officer, sued in their individual and * [UNPUBLISHED]

official capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 8, 2008

Filed: April 15, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Keith Washington appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal with

prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, following the court’s adverse grant of

summary judgment based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He also

Appellate Case: 07-1343 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2008 Entry ID: 3423747
-2-

argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for

appointment of counsel.

In his pro se complaint, Washington alleged that he was a prisoner informant

for the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), that he was assaulted in prison by

known gang members because of his work for OSI, and that defendants--despite

knowing the attack was imminent--failed to prevent the attack or protect him from

harm, in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment. In his complaint, Washington acknowledged that he did not file a

grievance against defendants, but he asserted that he took other steps intending to

invoke an administrative remedy and that he had been threatened by one of the OSI

investigators not to say “anything to anybody.”

Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that Washington’s

section 1983 action could not proceed because he had not exhausted his administrative

remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to

prison conditions . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional

facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”); Jones v.

Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 918-23 (2007) (unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court

or considered; failure to exhaust is affirmative defense); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d

874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (defendant has burden of proving failure to

exhaust); Jones v. Coonce, 7 F.3d 1359, 1362 (8th Cir. 1993) (de novo review of

summary judgment decision). Although Washington submitted evidence showing that

he sent some letters to the Department of Corrections complaining about the assault,

the evidence also showed beyond genuine dispute that he did not follow the

established grievance procedure. See Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006)

(proper exhaustion demands compliance with agency’s deadlines and other critical

procedural rules). Further, while it is undisputed that an OSI investigator warned

Washington not to reveal his involvement with OSI, we cannot say that this warning

thwarted Washington’s right to utilize the grievance procedure. See Gibson v. Weber,

Appellate Case: 07-1343 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2008 Entry ID: 3423747
-3-

431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005) (inmates’s assertion that unnamed personnel “made

it clear” that he should voice complaints to medical personnel informally was not

evidence that any prison official thwarted initiation of grievance procedures or that

any official made it impossible to file grievances); Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684,

688 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Section 1997e(a) says nothing about a prisoner’s subjective

beliefs, logical or otherwise, about the administrative remedies that might be available

to him.”).

We further hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Washington appointment of counsel. See Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033

(8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review; factors court is to consider include, inter alia,

whether plaintiff and court will benefit from appointment of counsel, legal and factual

complexity of case, and plaintiff’s ability to investigate and present his claim).

Accordingly, we modify the dismissal of Washington’s action to be without

prejudice, see Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (1998)

(affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but modifying to

be without prejudice), and we affirm the dismissal, as modified.

__________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1343 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/15/2008 Entry ID: 3423747