[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-12136

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cv-00069-HLM

DELROY T. BOOTH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LIEUTENANT R. ALLEN, 

Correctional Officer of Georgia Department of Corrections,

SERGEANT. J. SMITH, 

Correctional Officer of Georgia Department of Corrections,

COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

WARDEN, HAYS STATE PRISON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(February 20, 2019)

Case: 18-12136 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 1 of 8 
2

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Delroy Booth, a prisoner in Hays State Prison, brought a § 1983 action 

against several defendants associated with the prison and the Georgia Department 

of Corrections. The district court dismissed Booth’s claims sua sponte, finding 

that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the prison grievance 

process before bringing his claims to federal court. Booth now appeals. 

I.

Booth, proceeding pro se, brought a § 1983 action against several defendants 

associated with Hays State Prison and the Georgia Department of Corrections. 

Booth alleged that the defendants violated his civil rights by spraying him with a 

chemical agent without provocation, preparing a false disciplinary report, 

providing him with shirts deliberately contaminated with parasites, and refusing 

him appropriate medical treatment for his resulting harms. Booth alleged that 

these events occurred in May 2017, and that his disciplinary report was “reversed” 

in August 2017. 

Booth filed a grievance with Hays State Prison on January 5, 2018, detailing 

these claims; his grievance was denied as untimely. He appealed the denial but 

allegedly never received a response to the appeal. In his complaint in district 

court, Booth included his grievance form and the response to his grievance as 

Case: 18-12136 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 2 of 8 
3

exhibits. These documents showed that Booth’s grievance was rejected because he 

failed to submit his grievance form within ten days of the incident as the prison’s 

policy required. Booth alleged that he did not submit a grievance form within ten 

days because prison officials did not make the forms available to him. 

A magistrate judge concluded in a report and recommendation that Booth’s 

attached exhibits demonstrated that he had failed to file a timely grievance, and 

therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before suit. The report also 

concluded that Booth had not exhausted his claim about intentional exposure to 

parasites, as he had not included it in his grievance; furthermore, the claim was 

factually frivolous. 

Booth moved to alter the judgment, objecting to the report and alleging that 

prison staff and supervisors had employed strategies to block the grievance 

procedure and prevent lawsuits. Specifically, Booth alleged that staff members 

were trained to withhold disciplinary reports until fourteen days after incidents and

grievance forms were not made available when the incidents at issue occurred. 

Booth also alleged that he was unable to include his allegations about parasites in 

his grievance because the Georgia Department of Corrections prohibits inmates 

from including more than one issue on a grievance form. 

Case: 18-12136 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 3 of 8 
4

The district court denied Booth’s motion to alter the judgment, treating the 

motion as an objection and concluding that it did not warrant reconsideration of the 

court’s original order. Booth now appeals. 

II.

If a plaintiff objects to portions of a report or recommendation, the court 

reviews those portions de novo. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S. Ct. 466, 

472 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). We review a district court’s 

interpretation of § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirements and application of the 

section to a plaintiff’s claims de novo. Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1323 

(11th Cir. 1998). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. 

Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1174–75 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). In 

reviewing plaintiff’s claims in a complaint, “we accept allegations in a complaint 

as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. at 1175. 

“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by 

attorneys and are liberally construed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Federal law provides that a prisoner may not bring an action “with respect to 

prison conditions under section 1983” until they have exhausted all available 

administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). To properly exhaust 

administrative remedies, a prisoner must “complete the administrative review 

process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules” of the prison grievance 

Case: 18-12136 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 4 of 8 
5

process. Jones v. Block, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S. Ct. 910, 922 (2007) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 126 S. Ct. 2378

(2006). An inmate fails to exhaust available administrative remedies if he files “an 

untimely or other procedurally defective administrative grievance.” Id.

Under § 1997e, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; inmates need not 

“specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.” Jones v. Bock, 

549 U.S. 199, 216, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). A district court may dismiss an 

action sua sponte, however, if an affirmative defense—including failure to 

exhaust—appears on the face of the complaint. Id. at 215, 127 S. Ct. at 921; 

Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011); see also Alexander, 

159 F.3d at 1328 (affirming a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of an action for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by § 1997e(a)). 

The district court correctly held that Booth failed to exhaust his claim 

regarding harms caused by prison officials contaminating his clothing with 

parasites because Booth did not adequately allege this incident on his grievance 

form. Booth later alleged that he could only discuss one issue on a grievance form, 

but he has not suggested that he was barred from filing more than one grievance 

form, nor has he explained why he did not file another grievance form. Thus, we 

affirm the district court’s determination that Booth failed to exhaust his 

Case: 18-12136 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 5 of 8 
6

administrative remedies with respect to this claim. As for the claims that Booth 

adequately alleged on his grievance form, however, further analysis is required. 

“Under § 1997e(a), the exhaustion requirement hinges on the ‘availability’ 

of administrative remedies”—that is, an inmate “must exhaust available remedies, 

but need not exhaust unavailable ones.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858

(2016). An administrative remedy is not truly available to obtain relief if: (1) the 

administrative procedure “operates as a simple dead end,” with “officers unable or 

consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates”; (2) the 

administrative scheme is so opaque and confusing that no reasonable prisoner can 

use it; or (3) “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a 

grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Id. at 

1858–60. Prison administrators may frustrate inmates’ efforts to bring a grievance 

by, for example, misleading or threatening inmates to prevent them from using the 

proper procedures. Id. at 1860. 

In Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008), we established a twostep process for resolving motions to dismiss prisoner lawsuits for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. First, district courts must “look to the factual 

allegations in the motion to dismiss and those in the prisoner’s response and accept 

the prisoner’s view of the facts as true. The court should dismiss if the facts as 

stated by the prisoner show a failure to exhaust.” Whatley v. Warden, Ware State 

Case: 18-12136 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 6 of 8 
7

Prison, 802 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2015) (describing the Turner test). In the 

second step, “if dismissal is not warranted on the prisoner’s view of the facts, the 

court makes specific findings to resolve disputes of fact, and it should dismiss if, 

based on those findings, defendants have shown a failure to exhaust.” Id.

Turner concerned review of a motion to dismiss; here, in contrast, the 

district court dismissed Booth’s claims sua sponte. Even so, we need only apply 

the first step from Turner to conclude that the court did not conduct a full analysis. 

The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation and 

determined that nothing in Booth’s objections warranted rejection of the report and 

recommendation because the grievance response attached to Booth’s complaint 

established that he had not timely filed a grievance. The court did not, however, 

discuss Booth’s allegations—included on his grievance form and in his objection 

to the magistrate’s report—that prison officials withheld certain necessary forms to 

thwart his efforts to timely file. Accepting all allegations in Booth’s complaint as 

true and construing them in the light most favorable to him, especially in his pro se 

capacity, it is not entirely clear that the administrative remedies that Booth failed to 

exhaust were available to him. 

The district court dismissed Booth’s claims before the defendants responded 

to his allegations. While the defendants may be able to assert the affirmative 

defense of failure to exhaust and show that the grievance process permitted Booth

Case: 18-12136 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 7 of 8 
8

to timely file, they have not yet done so. We vacate and remand in part the 

decision of the district court so that the court may consider Booth’s remaining 

claims and proceed to hear responses from defendants. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN 

PART. 

Case: 18-12136 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 8 of 8