IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ARTHUR JAMES TIGNER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW 

 ) 

OFFICER SELLER, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO THEIR 

SPECIAL REPORT

COME NOW Jay Jones1, Sheriff of Lee County, Alabama, Sergeant Timothy Jones2, 

Corrections Officer David Sellers3

, and Corrections Officer Danny Tucker, the Defendants in the 

above-styled cause, and submit their Reply to the Plaintiff’s Response to their Special Report. 

1. In their Special Report, the Defendants presented evidence that the Plaintiff has 

not exhausted his administrative remedies at the Lee County Detention Center. In the Plaintiff’s 

Response, he stated that he filed a written complaint. However, he failed to present any evidence 

(or to even allege) that he exhausted the grievance appeals process provided at the Detention 

Center. Therefore, the undisputed facts show that he did not exhaust the grievance appeals 

process provided at the Detention Center. Thus, his Complaint is due to be dismissed as a matter 

of law. Harper v. Jenkin, 179 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of 

complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where the plaintiff inmate filed a 

grievance but failed to file an appeal); see also Cole v. Irby, 181 Fed. Appx. 392, 393-94 (5th 

Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where 

 

1

 Sheriff Jay Jones is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Sheriff J. Jone.” 2

 Sergeant Timothy Jones is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Sgt. Jone.” 3

 Corrections Officer David Sellers is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Officer Seller.”

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 17 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

inmate alleged that he filed a grievance but did not sufficiently allege that he attempted to 

comply with the appeal requirements); Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 

2001) (holding that inmate’s failure to “pursue the grievance remedy to conclusion” barred his 

lawsuit); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (“An inmate who begins the 

grievance process but does not complete it is barred from pursuing a § 1983 claim under PLRA 

for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.”). 

2. In his Response, the Plaintiff does not dispute that he did not suffer any physical 

injury as a result of the allegations of his Complaint. He simply states that the law that the 

Defendants cite is wrong. However, he presents no law to dispute the binding precedent cited by 

the Defendants. Because the Plaintiff did not suffer any physical injury, his claims are due to be 

dismissed as a matter of law on their merits. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 528 (U.S.2002) 

(“[T]o sustain a [conditions of confinement] claim, “significant injury” must be shown; Boxer X 

v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1111 (11th Cir. 2006). Further, because the Plaintiff did not suffer any 

physical injury, his claims are due to be dismissed as a matter of law pursuant to the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1312-

13 (11th Cir. 2002). 

3. In his Response, the Plaintiff has not disputed that he has failed to allege any 

wrongdoing or causal connection with regard to Sheriff Jones. Further, he has failed to show 

that Sergeant Jones had the subjective awareness that the toilet was broken, and he does not state 

that he ever asked Sergeant Jones to use the restroom. Accordingly, all claims against Sheriff 

Jones and Sergeant Jones are due to be dismissed as a matter of law. Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 

F. 3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995); Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F. 2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986). 

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 17 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

4. In his Response, the Plaintiff has failed to dispute that he is no longer housed at 

the Lee County Detention Center and that he thus lacks standing to pursue his claims for 

injunctive relief and that those claims are moot. Accordingly, these claims are due to be 

dismissed as a matter of law. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 97 (1983); Zatler, 802 

F.2d at 399. 

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of December, 2006. 

s/Amanda Kay Morgan 

AMANDA KAY MORGAN Bar No. ALL079 

Attorney for Defendants 

WEBB & ELEY, P.C. 

7475 Halcyon Pointe Drive 

Post Office Box 240909 

Montgomery, Alabama 36124 

Telephone: (334) 262-1850 

Fax: (334) 262-1889 

E-mail: amorgan@webbeley.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this the 28th day of December, 2006, I have electronically filed 

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and that I have mailed a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following 

non-CM/ECF participant: 

Arthur James Tigner 

AIS 152184 

Bullock Correctional Facility 

PO Box 5107 

Union Springs, AL 36089-5107 

 s/Amanda Kay Morgan 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 17 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 3 of 3