FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 14, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14231 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 75 -C V -4 B E N J A M I N R . S I N G L E T O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , M R . F N U H A Y N E S , T r a n s p o rt O f f ic e r , G e o r g iaS ta te P r is o n , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts , M R . F N U J O H N S O N , S e r g e a n t, T r a n s p o rt O f

f ic e r , G e o r g iaS ta te P r is o n , D O U G L A S F R A N K S , J A N E D O E , N u r s e , G e o r g iaS ta te P r is o n , D A R L E N E P A R K E R , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 14, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B e nj a m i n R . S i ngl e t on, aG e or gi apr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , appe a l s the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

its o r d e rd is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 co m p lain t. T h e d istrict co u rt fo u n d th at S in g leto n ’s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve appe a l of hi s pr i s on gr i e va nc e w a s unt i m e l y , c onc l udi ng tha the fa i l ed t o exh austhi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es un der the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A c t( “ P L R A ” ) , 42 U . S . C . § 1997e ( a ) . S i ngl e t on a r gue s tha the t i m e l y ha nde d the appe a l t o hi s c ouns e l ora nd tha ta ny de l a y w a s c aus e d by pr i s on of f i c i a l s . I n the al t ern at i v e, h e arg u es th ath e h ad n o ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed y “ av ai l ab l e” b ecau se p r is o n o f f ic ia ls p r e v e n te d h im f

r o m f ilin g atim e ly a d m in is tr a tiv e g r ie v a n c e ap p e a l. S i ngl e t on’ s c om pl a i nts t e m s f r om aF e brua ry 19, 2004, i nc i de ntw he r e abus tr a ns port i ng pr i s one r s c aughtf i r e . S i ngl e t on c l a i m s tha the s uf f e r e d i nj ur i e s a nd a l os s of pr ope rty a s ar e s ul tof

pr i s on of

f i c i a l s ’ w r ongdoi ng. T w o da y s l a t e r , on F ebruary21 , S i ng l et on began the adm i ni stra t i ve gri evance proce ss by fi l i ng an3

i nf orm a l gr i e va nc e . T he n, on M a r c h 9, 2004, he f i l e d af orm a l gr i e va nc e r e ga r di ng the i nci dentw i th the G eorgi a D epartm entof C orre ct i on s ( the “ D O C ”) . O n M ar ch 30, 2004, S i ngl e t on r e c e i ve d ar e s pons e f r om the W a r de n de ny i ng hi m r e l i e f . T he S t andard O pera t i ng P roce du re s i n p l ac e a tthatt i m e provi ded thatan i nm at e m ay ap p e a l th e W a r d e n ’s r e s p o n s e ( b y s u b m ittin g th e g r ie v a n c e a n d a n ap p e a l f o rm to h i s assi g n ed co u n sel o r o r th e G ri ev an ce C o o rd i n at o r) w i th i n w i th fo u r b u si n ess d a y s . I n th is c a s e , S in g le to n h a d u n til A p r il 5 , 2 0 0 4 to s u b m it th e f o rm s to h is coun se l or. S i ng l et on ’ s a dm i ni stra t i ve appeal w as deni ed by the D O C , w hi ch st at ed i tw as no tre ce i ved b y the gri evance off i ce un t i l A pri l 9, 20 04 , and w as there fore u n t i m el y. T he de f e nda nt s a s s e rttha tS i ngl e t on di d nots ubm i thi s appe a l unt i l A pr i l 6, 2004, one da y l a t e . T he y r e l y pr i m a r i l y on the “ D a t e A ppe a l R e c e i ve d” l i ne on S i ng l et on ’ s gri evance f

orm , w hi ch re ads A pri l 6, 20 04 and i s s i gn ed by an uni de nt i f i e d pr i s on of

f i c i a l . T he f

orm i s a l s o m a rke d w i th as t a m p not i ng tha tthe appeal w as re ce i ved o n A pri l 9 b y the G ri evance O ff i ce . S i ng l et on , on the other h a n d , a s s e rts th a t h e s u b m itte d h is ap p e a l to h is a s s ig n e d c o u n s e lo rd a y s e a r lie r . H e r e l i e s , i n pa rt , on a n a f f i da vi ts t a t i ng tha the ha nde d hi s c om pl e t e d appe a l a nd g r ie v a n c e f

o rm to h is a s s ig n e d c o u n s e lo r , M r . B e r g lin , o n o rab o u t A p r il 1 , 2 0 0 4 . H e s t at es thatB er gl i n ass ured hi m thatB er gl i n w ou l d p l ac e the form s i n C hi efIt is not clear whether the signatureon the “Date Appeal Receive ” line is Peal’s. It does 1 not, however , seem to be that of Berg lin, who appea rs to have signed the grieva nce f orm on March 9, 2004, confirmingwhen the f orm was issued to Singleton. 4 C ou nsel or Jose ph P ea l ’ s box . S i ng l et on al so subm i tt ed as evi dence a gri evance 1 form dat ed M ay21 , 20 04 , w here he com pl ai ns thathe t i m el y handed h i s app ea l f orm s t o B e r gl i n on M a r c h 31, 2004 a nd tha tB e r gl i n w a s thus r e s pons i bl e f ora ny d e la y in p r o v id in g th e f o rm s to P e a l. C i t i ng W y at t v . T e rhune , 31 5 F . 3d 11 08 (9th C i r. 20 03 ), the di stri ctcourt tr e a t e d the m ot i on t o di s m i s s f orf a i l ur e t o e xhaus ta s a n “ une num e r a t e d R ul e 12( b) m o tio n ” to d is m is s r a th e rth a n am o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. U n d e rth is pr oc e dur a l f

r a m e w ork, the di s tr i c tc ourti ndul ge d i n c ons i de r i ng m a tt e r s out s i de th e p le a d in g s a s w e ll a s d e c id in g d is p u te d is s u e s o f f a c t a n d m a k in g c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i ons . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d both S i ngl e t on’ s a nd the de f e nda nt s ’ e vi de nc e , a nd f ound tha tthe “ be s te vi de nc e ” of w he n S i ngl e t on s u b mi tt e d h i s ap p e a l w a s th e “ D a t e A p p e a l Re c e i v e d ” l i n e o n th e g r i e v a n c e f o rm, pr e s um abl y f

i ndi ng tha tS i ngl e t on’ s c ontr a ry e vi de nc e l a c ke d c r e di bi l i ty . T he c ourtc onc l ude d tha tS i ngl e t on ha d, thus , not“ m e thi s bur de n” of s how i ng tha the w a s th w a rte d f

r o m f ilin g atim e ly ap p e a l. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on f

or ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . C orw i n v . W al t D is ne y C o. , 47 5 F . 3d 12 39 , 12 54 (11th C i r.I f a p l ai n t i ff f ai l s t o m ake su ff

i ci en tal l egati on s i n h i s com p l ai n tsu ch th atan aff i rm at i ve d efen se 2 ap p ea rs on it s fac e, h is co m p lain t m ay b e su bje ct to d ism issal u n d er R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ). Jon es , 12 7 S . C t . at 9 2 1 ; C ot t one v . J

e nne , 32 6 F . 3 d 13 5 2 , 13 5 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 20 0 3 ) ( “A com p l ai n ti s subje ctt o dis m i ss al un d er R ul e 12( b) ( 6) whe n i t s a l l e g a t i o ns , o n the i rf a c e , s ho w tha ta n a f

f i rm a t i v e de f

e ns e ba r s r e c o v e ryo n the claim .”). O nc e “ma tt e r s o ut s i de the pl e a di ng s a r e pr e s e nt e d, ” a mot i o n f o rdi s m i s s a l pur s ua ntt o 12( b) ( 6) 3 i s n o l on gerapp r op r i at e, and “t h e m ot i on m u stbe tr eat ed as on e f ors u m m aryjud gm entun d erR u l e 56 . ” F ed . R . C iv. P . 1 2 (d ). 5 2 0 0 7 ) . We r e v i e w de no vo adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i c a t i on of 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) ’s e x h au s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t. J o h n s o n v . Me a do ws , 418 F . 3d 1152, 1155 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ [ A ] m i s t a ke of l a w i s , by de f

i ni t i on, a n abus e of di sc re t i on . ” O bas ohan v . U . S. A t t y . G e n. , 479 F . 3d 785, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2007) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). T h e P L R A ’s e x h au s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t is n o t ju r is d ic tio n a l. W oodf ord v . N go , 5 4 8 U .S . 8 1 , — , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 3 7 8 , 2 3 9 2 , 1 6 5 L . E d . 2 d 3 6 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( s ta tin g it is

“ c l e a rtha tthe P L R A e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nti s not j ur i s di c t i ona l ” ) . I ns t e a d, e xhaus t i on unde rthe P L R A i s a n a f f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e t o be r a i s e d by the de f e nda nt a n d is s u b

je c t to th e u s u a l p r o c e d u r a l p r a c tic e . Jones v . B ock , — U . S. — , 1 2 7 S. C t . 910, 919- 21, 166 L . E d. 2d 798 ( 2007) . W hi l e the e xi s t e nc e of a n a f f i rm a t i ve de f e ns e m a y be c l e a rf

r om the f a c e of the pl e a di ngs , i n w hi c h c a s e aR ul e 12( b) ( 6) di sm i ss al i s app ropri at e, w e ordi nari l y tre ataf fi rm at i ve defense s on sum m ary 2 j ud gm entpu rs uantt o R ul e 56. F urtherm ore, the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng an 3 af fi rm at i ve defense l i es on the de f e ndant , no ton the pl ai nt i ff as the di stri ctcourt6

s e e m s to s u g g e s t. See e . g. , Int ’l Stam p A rt , Inc. v. U

. S. P ostalServ . , 456 F . 3d 1270, 1274 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ I f the m ova ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr oof o n an i ssu e, b ecau se, as a d efen d an t , i ti s assert i n g an affi rm at i v e d efen se, i tm u st es t abl i sh thatthere i s no g enui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctas t o any el em entof that de f e ns e . ” ) . I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc ourtl ooke d be y ond the pl e a di ngs , a nd the r e f or e R ul e 56 appl i e s . S um m a ry j udgm e nti s notappr opr i a t e w he r e age nui ne is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t e x is ts ab o u t a n a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n s e . See F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e f

i nd tha tdi s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng S i ngl e t on’ s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on, a s i t s de c i s i on w a s ba s e d on a n e rr one ous ap p li ca ti o n o f th e P L R A ’s ex h au stio n re q u irem en t. W e r ev er se th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of S i ngl e t on’ s m ot i on a nd r e m a nd the c a s e f orthe di s tr i c tc ourtt o de t e rm i ne w h e th e rS in g le to n h a s r a is e d ag e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rh is appe a l w a s t i m e l y f

i l e d. RE V E RS E D A ND RE MAND E D.