Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01809/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01809-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Duane Marlin
Appellant
Richie Marquez
Appellee
L. Sanders
Appellee
Greg Thompson
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1809

___________

Michael Duane Marlin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Richie Marquez, Captain, FCI - Forrest *

City; Greg Thompson, Assistant * [UNPUBLISHED]

Warden, FCI - Forrest City; L. Sanders, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 20, 2007

Filed: March 6, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Michael Duane Marlin appeals the district court’s1

 order

dismissing his lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and

under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971). 

Appellate Case: 06-1809 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2007 Entry ID: 3285189
-2-

We agree with the district court that the Bivens claims were not

administratively exhausted. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has a multi-step process for

inmates to use in bringing complaints about any aspect of their confinement: an

informal resolution, an administrative remedy (with the warden), an appeal to the

BOP’s regional director, and finally an appeal to the BOP’s central office. There are

deadlines for each step. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 to .18. Marlin did not rebut the BOP

attorney’s declaration that an inmate must proceed through all the steps and be denied

at each before he is deemed to have exhausted. Because he filed the instant complaint

on June 27, 2005--just thirteen days after he was assigned to the job giving rise to the

instant lawsuit--it would have been impossible for him to have completed all four

steps of the administrative-remedy process before filing the instant complaint.

Dismissal of the Bivens claims was thus mandatory. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d

624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003). We also find no basis for overturning the district court’s

dismissal on the merits of the ADA claims. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Marlin’s pending

motions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1809 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2007 Entry ID: 3285189