Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01532/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01532-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. Brown
Appellee
- Erwin
Not Party
James McAlphin
Appellant
Nettles
Not Party
R. Toney
Appellee
Dr. Ware
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 03-1532EA

_____________

James McAlphin, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

R. Toney, Warden, Varner Super Max, * On Appeal from the United

ADC; T. Brown, Grievance Officer, * States District Court

Varner Super Max, ADC; Dr. Ware, * for the Eastern District

Varner Super Max, ADC, * of Arkansas.

*

Appellees, * [To Be Published]

*

- Erwin, Nurse, Varner Super Max; *

Nettles, Nurse, Varner Super Max, *

ADC, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2004

Filed: July 19, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James McAlphin, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals the District Court’s dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as

Appellate Case: 03-1532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789305 
-2-

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (inmate cannot bring § 1983 action challenging

prison conditions until available administrative remedies are exhausted). After

reviewing the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of

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

reverse.

McAlphin filed an in forma pauperis complaint against Varner SuperMax

Warden Rick Toney, Grievance Officer Terri Brown, and Dr. Stanley Ware. He

alleged that defendants denied him immediate dental extractions because there was

no dental lab at Varner SuperMax; that Toney and Dr. Ware had “ignored his

request[s]” and had not allowed him to be escorted down the hall to receive treatment

at the Varner Unit infirmary (the Varner Unit was attached to Varner SuperMax); and

that Toney and Brown had refused to view his situation as an emergency and had

shown deliberate indifference to “problems.” McAlphin’s gums became so infected

that five teeth — two more than originally needed — had to be extracted and two

additional extractions were required. To his complaint, McAlphin attached three

grievances, each fully exhausted, about his dental treatment. The District Court

dismissed the complaint before service of process on the ground that McAlphin was

not entitled to proceed i.f.p. because he had brought three or more prior actions that

were dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). McAlphin appealed the

dismissal. We remanded, concluding that, by alleging he needs two more tooth

extractions and an infection is spreading in his mouth, McAlphin’s complaint fell

within the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g).

McAlphin v. Toney, 281 F. 3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002).

On remand, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust

prison remedies, as 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires. McAlphin opposed that motion

and moved to amend his complaint to add additional claims and defendants. The

District Court agreed with defendants that McAlphin’s original complaint alleged

three separate claims: a claim that dental treatment had been denied, a claim that

Appellate Case: 03-1532 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789305 
-3-

Toney and Brown failed to treat McAlphin’s grievances as emergency matters, and

a claim that Toney and Dr. Ware refused to escort McAlphin to the Varner Unit

infirmary for treatment. Concluding that McAlphin’s grievances did not put Toney

and Brown on notice of claims about the grievance procedure, the District Court

denied McAlphin’s motion to amend and dismissed the complaint without prejudice

because he had not exhausted all three claims.

We agree with the District Court that a claim falling within the imminent

danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) must nonetheless meet the mandatory

exhaustion requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,

524 (2002). But we disagree with the Court’s construction of McAlphin’s complaint.

We read the complaint as alleging one claim for the denial of emergency dental

treatment. The allegations that Toney and Brown did not treat McAlphin’s

grievances as emergency matters, and that Toney and Dr. Ware refused to escort

McAlphin to the nearby infirmary for emergency treatment, were part of that claim.

As defendants conceded that McAlphin’s denial-of-treatment claim was fully

exhausted, the Court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust.

We affirm the District Court’s denial of McAlphin’s motion to amend. When

an inmate’s right to file i.f.p. claims is subject to the “three-strikes” restriction in 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the inmate is granted leave to proceed i.f.p. under the

“imminent danger” exception, the i.f.p. action must be limited to imminent danger

claims that have been properly exhausted. Thus, McAlphin’s motion to amend to add

other claims and defendants was properly denied as an abuse of the imminent danger

exception. Indeed, if the inmate initially joins an exhausted imminent danger claim

with other unexhausted claims, it may be both necessary and appropriate to sever the

unexhausted claims so that the imminent danger claim may proceed i.f.p. to a prompt,

separate disposition. See Kozohorsky, 332 F.3d at 1143-44.

Appellate Case: 03-1532 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789305 
-4-

The judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings

looking to disposition on the merits.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1532 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789305