1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER M. TIERNEY, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5738/LAC/ZCB

J. HATTAWAY, et al.,

Defendant.

 / 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 

25). Defendants—correctional officers with the Florida Department of Corrections

(FDOC)—have moved to dismiss the case for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. (Docs. 47, 55). Plaintiff has responded in opposition. (Doc. 57). For the 

reasons below, Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be denied. 

I. Background1

Plaintiff is an FDOC inmate. He was transferred from Century Correctional 

Institution to Okaloosa Correctional Institution (OCI) on May 10, 2020. (Doc. 25 at 

8). Upon arriving at OCI, he was screened and processed by corrections officers, 

1 The following factual summary is based on the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s 

third amended complaint. The allegations are presumed true at this stage in the case. 

Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1273 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999). 
2

including Defendants Hattaway, Dunham, Taylor, and Hutchenson. (Id.). He 

alleges that a supervising officer informed Defendants that Plaintiff had previously 

assaulted an officer. (Id.). According to Plaintiff, Defendants then took him to the 

shower area, placed a wet towel over his face, and started pouring water on the towel. 

(Id.). This act, which Plaintiff refers to as “waterboard[ing],” made Plaintiff feel as 

though he was drowning. (Id. at 9, 12). Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hattaway 

placed him against the wall and choked him, Defendant Dunham punched him in the 

ribs, and Defendant Hutchenson hit him on the head. (Id. at 9-10). Additionally, 

Plaintiff alleges the handcuffs were so tight that his hand went numb and felt as if it 

had been broken. (Id.). According to Plaintiff, the incident resulted in him suffering 

physical injuries and mental “suffering/humiliation.” (Id. at 10). 

In his third amended complaint, Plaintiff claims Defendants’ conduct violated 

his Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. at 11). He seeks compensatory and punitive 

damages. (Id.). Defendants’ have moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 

(Docs. 47, 55). They have included with the motions to dismiss a declaration from 

Lawanda Sanders-Williams, FDOC’s custodian of records for grievance appeals. 

(Doc. 47-1). According to the declaration, Plaintiff “did not file any grievance 

appeals to the Bureau of Policy Management and Inmate Appeals in DOC Central 
3

Office” relating to the incident at OCI. (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff has responded to the 

motion to dismiss, arguing that he sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies 

because his informal grievance was approved and referred to the Inspector General. 

(Doc. 52 at 1). 

II. Discussion

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner is 

required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action under any 

federal law, including actions alleging excessive force by corrections officers. 

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520 (2002). An inmate in FDOC custody exhausts 

administrative remedies by complying with the FDOC’s grievance procedure. The

grievance procedure has three steps: (1) the inmate files an informal grievance within 

twenty days of the incident; (2) if the grievance is not resolved at that level, then the

inmate files a formal grievance at the institutional level within fifteen days from the 

date the informal grievance was responded to; and (3) if the inmate is unhappy with 

the response at the institutional level, then the inmate files an appeal with the Office 

of the Secretary of the FDOC within fifteen days of the response to the formal 

grievance. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 33-103.005-007, 011 (2018). 

If an inmate files an informal grievance, and the informal grievance is 

approved, then there is no need for the inmate to proceed through the remainder of 
4

the administrative grievance process. See Williams v. Dep’t of Corr., 678 F. App’x 

877, 881 (11th Cir. 2017) (explaining that because the inmate’s “informal grievance 

was address and approved, [the inmate] was not required to submit any further 

grievances . . . . [H]e exhausted his administrative remedies on those issues and was 

entitled to pursue a cause of action based on them.”). That is so because although 

the “Florida Administrative Code address further steps when a grievance is rejected, 

they do not contain similar provisions requiring inmates to undertake additional

action upon approval of a grievance in order to complete the review process.” 

Fulmore v. Leigh, No. 8:12-CV-1705, 2014 WL 2441864, at *7 (M.D. Fla. May 30, 

2014). After all, it would make little sense for an inmate who has received an 

“approval” of an informal grievance to then appeal that approval. See Rosa v. Littles, 

336 F. App’x 424, 429 (5th Cir. 2009) (opining that “[r]equiring inmates to appeal 

a favorable result” would “waste administrative resources” and be inconsistent with 

the prescribed administrative review process). 

An inmate has sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies when an 

informal grievance is approved, and the matter is referred to the FDOC Inspector 

General for an investigation. See Luckey v. May, No. 5:14-CV-315, 2016 WL 

1128426, at *10 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2016) (holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently 

exhausted administrative remedies because, in response to his emergency informal 
5

grievance, “prison officials had turned the matter over to the Inspector General for 

investigation and [informed the plaintiff] that [his] appeal was ‘approved’ from that 

standpoint”); see also Lanier v. Smith, No. 3:08-CV-833, 2009 WL 1758904, at *1 

(M.D. Fla. June 19, 2009) (denying motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust where 

the plaintiff was informed that his informal grievances had resulted in a referral to 

the Inspector General); Fulmore, 2014 WL 2441864, at *7 (finding that the plaintiff 

had exhausted administrative remedies because his informal grievance had been 

“approved” and the matter “addressed by the Inspector General’s Office”); Manago 

v. Glass, No. 3:16-CV-1508, 2019 WL 1014440, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2019)

(“Given the approval of Plaintiff’s grievance and the fact that it was referred to the 

Inspector General for ‘review and action,’ the Court finds Plaintiff was not required 

to proceed through the rest of the grievance process.”). 

In this case, Plaintiff submitted an informal grievance on May 11, 2020. (Doc. 

25 at 12). On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff received a response to his informal grievance. 

(Id.). The response informed Plaintiff that “your allegations have already been 

forwarded to the Office of the Inspector General for further review and action if 

necessary. Your grievance is being approved for the sole purpose of forwarding to 

the Office of the Inspector General and is not a substantiation of your allegations.” 

(Id.). And the response further stated: “Based on the above information, your 
6

grievance is approved.” (Id.). The response also contained the following 

information: “If your informal grievance is denied, you have the right to submit a 

formal grievance in accordance with Chapter 33-103.006, F.A.C.” (Id.). Consistent 

with that response, the Office of the Inspector General launched an investigation of 

Plaintiff’s allegations. (See Doc. 52 at 21). 

Here, as in the cases cited above, Plaintiff sufficiently exhausted his 

administrative remedies by filing an informal grievance that was “approved” by the 

FDOC. The record is clear that Plaintiff’s informal grievance was “approved”—the 

word “approved” is written twice in the FDOC’s response, and it is also circled at 

the bottom of the form. (Doc. 25 at 12). Given that Plaintiff’s informal grievance 

was “approved,” and the matter referred to the Inspector General, it would have been 

pointless for Plaintiff to appeal by filing a formal grievance. See Fulmore, 2014 WL 

2441864, at *7 (explaining that the administrative review process does not 

“require[e] inmates to undertake additional action upon approval of a grievance in 

order to complete the review process”). Indeed, the form on which the FDOC 

responded to Plaintiff’s informal grievance specifically stated that an inmate should 

only file a formal grievance “[i]f your informal grievance is denied.” (Doc. 25 at 

12) (emphasis added). Based on the contents of the FDOC’s response, the language 

of the FDOC’s own form, the case law cited above, and common sense the Court 
7 

finds no merit in Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies by not proceeding through the formal grievance process. 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ 

Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 47, 55) be DENIED. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 9th day of December 2022.

 /s/ Zachary C. Bolitho 

Zachary C. Bolitho

United States Magistrate Judge

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be 

filed within fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any 

different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court’s 

internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of 

the objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate 

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s 

order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.