UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

_______________________________________ ) F RED PLUM ME R, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 07-1161 ( RMU) ) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) De fe nd ant. ) _______________________________________) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION I. Introduction Pla int if f F re d Pl umm e r, a

pr iso ne r i n th e Di str ic t of Col umb ia

ja il, fi le d th is pr o s e complaint ag ainst the defe ndant District of Columbia (“D istrict”) unde r 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleg ed Eig hth Amendment violations. The District filed a motion to di smiss or for summary judgme nt for fa ilure to exhaust administ rative r emedies, a nd Plumm er f

iled an opposition to the motion. Bec ause the rec ord establishes that Plummer did not exhaust his administrative
reme dies befor e filingthis action, the District will be g rante d summary judgme nt as a matter

of law. II. Bac kgr ound The incide nts givingrise to this complaint occurr ed in the D.C. Jail over the course of the month of May

2007, and this lawsuit was filed on June 29, 2007. Compl. at 1-2. The District’s Coordinator of L itigation for the Depa rtment of Corre ctions filed a de clar ation stating that Plumm er ha d not filed any formal inmate grieva

nce r elatingto a re quest he a lleg edly made on J une 27, 2007 for

protec tive custody

and plac ement in a sing le ce ll. See De f. ’s Mo t. t o D ism iss2

or for Summ. J ., Ex . 2 (De cl. of Sg t. Aden B ushee, Sept. 24, 2007 (“ Bushe e De cl.”) ) ¶ 3. In an
un date d s tate me nt s ig ne d b y Plumme r a

nd re c e ive d b y

thi s Co ur t in De c e mbe r 2 00 8, he c la ims that he did exhaust his adminis trative re medies. In support, he has submitted a memor andum from the jail wa

rden, a cknowledg ing that on Dece mber 4, 2007, the w arde n had re ceive d a g rieva nce f rom Plumm er, that the g rieva nce ha d been misplac ed, and r equestingPlumm er to “ resubmit y our g rieva

nce so that y our nee ds can be proper ly addre ssed.” SeePl. ’s Re sp on se to Orde r to Show Cause, appe nding Me m. to Pl ummer fr om Warden Wainrig ht, Feb. 22, 2008 (“Wainrig ht Mem.”). III . Le ga l A nal ys is A. The P rison Litigation Reform Act The Prison L itigation Refor m Act of 1995 (“ PL RA”) a pplies to “any

person inca

rce rate d or deta ined in any

fac ility who is acc used of, c onvicted of, [or] sentence d for . . . violations of criminal law or

the terms and c onditions of parole, probation, pretrial re lease or diversiona ry prog ram.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). The PL RA require s that befor e filinga § 1983 or othe r fe dera l lawsuit reg ardingthe conditions of conf inement, a pr isoner must exhaust “such administrative
reme dies as ar e ava ilable.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) . “[T] he PL RA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whethe r they involve g ener al circ umstances or particula r episodes, a

nd whether

they alleg e excessive f

orce or some other

wrong .” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). “T here is no question that ex haustion is mandatory under the PL RA and that unexhausted claims ca nnot be broug ht in court.” Jones v . Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 21 1 ( 20 07 ). Th e e xha

us tio n r e qu ir e me nt i s n ot s atis fi e d b y fi lin gan unti me ly

or oth e rw ise proce durally

defe ctive administrative grieva nce or appea l. W

oodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 833

(2 00 6) . Pr ov ide d th at th e a dmi nis tr ativ e pr oc e ss i s c a pa ble of a dd re ssi ngthe sit

uatio n g ivi ngri se to the g rieva

nce, e x haustion of administrative re medies is require d even if the pre cise re medy soug ht, such as dama g es, ca nnot be obtained through the administrative g rieva nce. Booth v. Chu rn e r, 53 2 U .S. 73 1, 73 9 ( 20 01 ); cf. Kaemme rling v. Lappin, Slip op. No. 07-5065, at 5-6 (D.C. Cir. Dec . 30, 2008) (c oncludingthat wher e the a dminist rative pr ocess is inca pable of pr ov idi ng“ any

re lie f” or takin g“ any

a c tio n whatso e ve r i n r e sp on se to [the pr iso ne r’ s] c omp la int , “ther e is no administrative proc ess to exhaust”). Proper e x haustion require s that the prisoner complete the a dminist rative r eview pr ocess a s defined by the prison g rieva

nce pr ocess itself. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. The fa ilure to exhaust under the PL RA is not a jurisdictional bar, but opera tes as an aff irmative def

ense. Id. at 211-12. As suc h, it is properly raised on a

motion for summary judgme nt, where matters outside the plea dings a re c onsidered. B. Su m m ary Judgm ent und er R ule 56 A d e fe nd ant m ay

at any tim e mov e fo r a

summa ry jud g me nt i n th e de fe nd ant’ s f avo r a s to
a ll o r a ny c la ims a sse rt e d a g a ins t it . F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( b) . O n a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, “[t] he inquiry

perf ormed is the thre shold inquiry of dete rmining whether

there is a nee d for a

trial –– whether , in other words, the re a re a ny g enuine f

actua l issues that properly can be resolved only by a finde r of f

act be cause they

may rea sonably

be re solved in favor

of either party .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). Summary judgme nt may

be g rante d only wher e the “ pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with the a ffidavits, if any , show that there is no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct and the
mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ); Bu rk e v . G ou ld ,4

286 F.3d 513, 517 ( D.C. Cir. 2002). A mater ial fac t is one that is capable of af fec ting the outcome of the litigation. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. A g enuine issue is one where the “evide nce is such that a re asonable jury could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmoving pa

rty ,” id ., as opposed to evidenc e that “is so one- sided that one pa rty must prevail as a

matter of la

w,” id.
at 25 2. A c ourt

c on sid e ri ng

a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt m

us t dr aw a ll “

jus tif ia ble infere nces” from the e vidence in favor of the nonmovant. Id. at2 5 5
. T h e n o n m o v i n gp arty, howeve r, must do more than simply “show that ther e is some metaphy sical doubt as to the materia l fac ts.” Rather, the nonmovant must “come for war d with ‘specif

ic fa cts showingthat there is a genuine issue for trial .’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 4 75 U. S. 574, 587 (1986) ( citing F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)) (e mphasis in origina l). In other wor ds, the nonmoving pa

rty must present spec ific fa cts that would ena ble a r easona

ble juror to find in that party ’s favor. Gree ne v. D alton, 16 4 F .3 d 6 71 , 6 75 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 9) . In th e e nd , “ the pla in langua g e of

Rul e 56 (c ) m and ate s th e e ntr y of summa ry jud g me nt . . . a g a ins t a

pa rt y wh o f a ils to make a showing sufficie nt to establish the exi stence of an e lement essential to that par ty ' s case , and on which that party

will bear the burden of

proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 47 7 U .S. 317, 322 (1986).

C. The Co ur t G r ant s t he De fend ant ’s M ot ion forSum m ar y J udgm e nt The PL RA applies to this action filed under § 1983 by

a prisoner

complainingabout the
c on dit ion s o f h is c on fi ne me nt, and in p art ic ula

r, inc ide nts that oc c ur

re d in Ma y 20 07 . T he PL RA require s that prisoners e x haust their administrative r emedies pr ior to filing a suit such as this one, which Plummer filed on June 29, 2007. Here , the District has filed a sworn stateme nt attesting that Plumm er did not complete the inmate g rieva nce pr ocess pr ior to filing this suit. Bushee5

Dec l. ¶ 3. Whil e Plummer disputes the District’s attestation, he doe s so in a conclusory manner and does not support his statements with spec ific fa cts. The doc umentary evidenc e that Plummer submitt ed with his opposition t o the District’s dispositive motion establishes that P lummer initiated an inmate g rieva nce that was re ceive d by

the war den’s of

fice on Dec ember

4, 2007,
mor e tha n f ive months afte r he filed this lawsuit. The de fenda

nt’s burden a s the moving pa rty may be discha rg ed by showing an abse nce of evidenc e in support of the pla intiff’s ca se. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 325. On this recor d, there is no
e vid e nc e that th e pla int if

f e xha us te d h is a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s b e fo re fi lin gthi s c la im i n c ourt , and ther e is a swor

n statement and doc umentary evidenc e to support the conc lusion that P lummer did not ex haust the administrative re medies. B ushee D ecl. ¶ 3; Wainright Mem. The ref ore, the Court concludes that no rea sonable juror could find that Plummer exhausted his administ rative
reme dies prior to filing this law suit, and acc ording ly will gr ant the District’s motion for
summa ry jud g me nt. IV. Conclusion Be cause the re cord e stablishes that the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative
re me die s b e fo re fi lin gsu it, a s is re qu ir e d b y the PL RA , 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 97 e (a ), the Court g ra nts the District’s motion for summary judgme nt. A final orde r consistent with this memorandum opinion is separate ly

and conte mporane ously

issued this 9th day

of F ebrua

ry , 2009.
RI CARDO M. URBI

NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge