FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 24, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 16257 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6
- 0 1 3 7 9
- CV- 1
- KO B- J EO O K E Y G A R R Y O K P A L A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s D . B . D R E W , W a r d e n , F e d e r a l C o r r e c tio n a l I n s titu tio n , T a lla d e g a , A lab a m a , F E D E R A L C O R R E C T I O N A L I N S T I T U T I O N , T A L L A D E G A , A L A B A M A , F E D E R A L B U R E A U O F P R I S O N S , A S S O C I A T E W A R D E N M . M . M I T C H E L L , C
. R A T L E D G E , U ni tM anager, D el t a U n it, F C I , T a lla d e g a , A lab a m a , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ 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 N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 24, 2007)See B ivens v. SixUnknown Named Ag ents of F ed. B urea u of Na rcotics, 403 U.S. 388 1 (1971). 2 B efo re B IR C H , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O key G arry O kp al a, a f eder al pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct
co u rt ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s a l of hi s B i ve ns a c t i on f orf a i l ur e t o e xhau st 1
a dm i n i s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a nd f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m . A f t e rc a r e f ul r e vi e w of

the
r e c o r d a n d O k p a l a ’ s b r i e f , w e a f f i r m. A c i vi l c om pl a i ntf

i l e d by a pr i s one rs e e ki ng r e dr e s s f r om a gove r nm e nt
e n t i ty , o f f i c e r o r e m p l o y e e i s s c r e e n e d b y th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 5 A . T h a t s e c tio n p r o v id e s th a t th e c o u r t s h a l l d i s m i s s t h e c o m p la in t if it is “f r iv o lo u s , m a lic io u s , o r f a ils to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h r e lie f m a y b e g r a n t e d .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s u a s p o n te di s m i s s a l unde r§ 1915A ( b)
. L e a l v. G e or gi a D e pt . of C or r . , 254 F
. 3d 1276, 1279 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )
. S e c t i on 1997e of

T i t l e 42, U ni t e d S t at es C ode , a s a m e nde d by the P r i s on L i t i ga t i on R e f

or m A c t( “ P L R A ” ) , pr ovi d es the f ol l ow i ng: “ N o a c t i on s ha l l be br oughtw i th r e s pe c tt o pr i s on c ondi t i ons unde rs e c t i on 1983 of thi s t i t l e , ora ny other F eder al l aw , by a pri soner c on fi ned i n any j ai l , p riso n , o r other c orre ct i on alWe areunpersuaded by Okpala’ s argument that his exhaustion of remedies af ter hefiled 2 thi s a pp e al ma ndate s re vers al. It is we ll- se ttl e d th at th ePLRAre quire s p riso nersto e xha us t administrative remedies bef ore f iling suit with respec t to prison conditions. 42 U.S .C. § 1997e (a) ; Alexander v. Ha

wk, 159 F. 3 d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Higg inbottom v. C arter, 223 F.3d 1259, 1261 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (re cognizi ng th at “[ t] he plain languag e of [§ 1997e(a)] makes exhaustion a precondition to filing a n action in fe deral court”)
.

3 f a c i l i ty unt i l s uc h a dm i ni s tr at i v e r e m e di e s a s a r e a va i l a bl e a r e e xha us t e d. ” 42 U . S
. C
. § 1 99 7e(a ). P ursuantt o the three -t i ersy st em of ad m in istra t i ve re m edi es p r o v i d e d b y 2 8 C. F. R. § § 5 4 2
. 1 0 , 5 4 2
. 1 1
- 5 4 2
. 1 6 , a n d th e BO P Pr o g r a m St a t e me nt 1 3 3 0 .7 , i n o r d e rto e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s , O kp a la w a s r e q u ir e d f ir s t to f ile a w r itte n c o m p la in t w ith th e w a r d e n o n f o r m B P
- 9 ; h e th e n w a s r e q u ir e d to ap p eal th e W ard en ’ s d eci si o n t o th e B O P reg i o n al d i rect o r o n f o r m B P -1 0 ; fi n al l y, O kp a la w a s r e q u ir e d to ap p e a l to t h e B O P g e n e r a l c o u n s e l o n f o r m B P
- 1 1 . I t is undi s put e d tha tpr i ort o f i l i ng hi s a c t i on i n di s tr i c t co ur t , O kpa l a ha d notr e c e i ve d a de c i s i on on hi s f

or m B P
- 11. 2 O n th is r e c o r d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r r b y d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t, p u rsu an tt o § 1 9 1 5 A , b ecau se O kp al a’ s fai l u re t o ex h au s t ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es -

- a n a f f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e -- w a s c l e a rf

r om the f

a c e of the c om pl a i nt . C f

. J one s v. B oc k, 127 S
. C t . 910, 920- 21 ( 2007) ( hol di ng tha t the P L R A ’ s exha us t i on
r e qui r e m e nti s an a f

f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e , butr e i t e r a t i ng tha tunde r§ 1915A ( b) , the
nor m a l pl e a di ng rul e s rem ai n unc ha nge d, a nd thus , “ [ w ] he the ra pa r t i c ul a rgr ound f o ro p p o s in g a c la im m a y b e th e b a s is f o rd is m is s a l f

o r f a i lu r e to s ta te a c la im4

d ep ends on w hether the al l egat i on s i n the com pl ai ntsuff i ce t o est abl i sh that grou nd , no t on the na tur e of the gr ou nd i n the a bs tr a c t . ” )
. W he r e , a s he r e , an a f f i r ma t i v e d e f

e n s e ap p e a r s o n th e f

a c e o f a p r i s o n e r ’ s c o mp l a i n t , th e r e b y r e v e a l i ng thatthe pri soner c anno tst at e acl ai m , the P L R A co n ti n u es t o requi re a di stri ctcourt t o d i s mi s s t he c omp l a i n t . Cf
. i d
. a t9 2 0
- 2 1 ( n o t i n g th a tu n d e rFe d
. R. Ci v . P. 12( b) ( 6) , a c om pl a i ntm a y be di sm i s s e d i f a n a f f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e , s uc h a s the
s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s o ro f

f ic ia l im m u n ity , ap p e a r s o n th e f a c e o f th e c o m p la in t)
. AF F I RME D.