2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-11-2009 

# S h a wn Lo ck ett, S r . v . D ominick D e ro se P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3561

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S h a wn L ocke tt, S r

. v . D ominick D e r os e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 112. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/112DL D- 0 5 7 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3561

___________ 

### S H A WNA . L O C KE T T , S R ., Appe l l ant

v. WARDEN DOMINI CK DEROSE

____________________________________ OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e M id d le D istrict o f

P enn sylv an ia ( D. C. Ci vi lNo. 08- c v- 01643) D istrict Ju d g e: H o n o rab le A . R ich ardC ap uto

____________________________________ Submi tt e d for

Pos s ibl e Di s mi s s a lPur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B) o r S umm ary

A ctio nP ursu ant to T h irdC ircu it L A R 2 7 .4 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 Nove m be r 25, 2009 Befo re : FUENT ES , J ORDAN andHA RD IMAN , Circuit Judg es ( Opi ni on fi l e d: De c e m

be r 11, 2009)

_________ OP INI ON

_________ PER CURI AM. Shaw n A . L ockett , Sr . , a Penns y l vani a s t at e i nm at e, fi l ed thi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a g a in st D o m in ick D e R o se , the W a rd e n a t D a u p h in C o u n ty

### Loc ke tt s ought dam a ge s and othe r

r e l i e f ba s e d on, i nt e r

a l i a , an a l l e ge d de ni a lof 1 

### a de quat e m e di c a lc ar e ; de ni a lof s ani t ary hous i ng c ondi t i ons ; de ni a lof a c c e s s t o the co urts, to churchserv ices, to m ail, an dto th e lawlib rary ; a ch allen g e to h is p lacem ent in lo ck -d o wnstatu s; a ch allen g e to receip t o f a misco n du ct rep o rt; an dp riso no f f icials’ alleg edu se o f

ex cessiv e f

o rce to qu ell a d isturb an ce. Lo ckett averr ed in the c om plai nt that

ther e i s a grie vance procedure avail ableat 2 

### D aup h inC o unty

P riso n , th at h e f

ileda g riev an ce co n cern in g th e f acts relatin g to th is co m p laint, b ut th at h e d idn o t co m p lete th e g riev an ce p ro cess b ef o re f ilin g su it. 2 P riso n , as se rtin g se v e ra l v io latio n s o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. L o c k e tt file d h is 1 c o m p lain t o n A u g u st 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , in th e D a u p h in C o u n tyC o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s. T h e sta te cour tt r ans ferr ed the ac t i on t o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, w her e i tw as ent er ed on the docke ton Sept ember8, 2008. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed Locket tl eave t o pr ocee d i n for m a paupe r i s . A ft er s ervi ce of

t he compl ai nt , W ar den D eR os e fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , ar gui ng, i nt eral i a, t hatL ockett , byhi s ow n admi s s i on i n t he compl ai nt , di d notexhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es t hr ough t he pr i s on gr i evanc e pr oces s pr i ort o fi l i ng s ui t , as r equi r ed under42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . L ockettr es ponded 2 byar gui ng t hathe “di d puti n gr i evanc es ” buthad “no r es pon[s e] back f r om t he w ar den. ” H e furt her con t end ed thatal l of h i s bel on gings w ere confis cat ed af t er J un e 16 , 20 08 , “so t h[er e] w as no w ay. . . t o fol l ow up w i t h t he gr i evanc es . . . puti n” bec aus e he w as “w i t hout p a p e r o r a n y th in g to w ri te w ith .” T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on t o di s m i s s . I tnot ed thatL ocketts i gned the compl ai nton J ul y28, 2009, and thati tw as cl earfr om the fa ce of t he compl ai ntt hat

### 3

L o ck ettd id n o t exh au st th e g ri ev an ce p roc ess p ri o r t o that d ate. T h e D istri ct C o u rt r ej ect ed Locket t ’ s cont ent i on t hathe coul d notexhaus tdue t o a l ack of paperorpen, obs ervi ng t hatt hi s cont ent i on i s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he fa ctual al l egat i ons s etfor t h i n t he compl ai nt . A s averr ed i n t he compl ai nt , L ockett ’ s bel ongi ngs w er e conf i s cat ed fol l ow i ng a Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , inc id e n t, bu t w e re re tu rn e d o n Ju ly1 0 , 2 0 0 8 . L o c k e tt rec e iv e d a w rite up s om et i m e af

t ert he J une 16 i nci dent , and he w as abl e t o appea l t hatw r i t e up t o W ar den D eR os e, w ho r es ponded t o t he appe al befor e Locket tfi l ed hi s compl ai nt . T he D i s t r i ct C our tnot ed thatt hes e fa ctual al l egat i ons under m i ne Locket t ’ s s ubs equentcont ent i on t hat W a rd e n D e R o se h a d f

a iled to re sp o n d to h is g rie v a n c e s, o r th a t L o c k e tt w a s u n a b le to “fol l ow up w i t h t he gr i evanc es . . . puti n. ” A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed L ockett ’ s compl ai nt , w i t houtpr ej udi ce, forfai l ur e t o exhaus tavai l abl e admi ni s t r at i ve re m e d ies p rio r to f

ili n g su it. L o c k e tt t im e lyf

iled a m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , to w h ich h e a ttac h e d c o p ies o f: ( i ) a gr i evanc e r es pons e dat ed A ugus t19, 2008, fr om t he C om m i s s onerof the Pr i s on B oar d of I ns pect or s , advi s i ng L ockettt hata gr i evanc e he ha d fi l ed w as deni ed, and that he coul d appea l fur t hert o t he ful l Pr i s on B oar d; and ( i i ) a gr i evanc e r es pons e dat ed Sept ember10, 2008, fr om t he Pr i s on B oar d Sol i ci t or , advi s i ng t hatt he Pr i s on B oar d had d e n ied L o c k e tt’s a p p e a l, an d th a t L o c k e tt co u ld a p p e a l f u rth e r to th e D a u p h in C o u n ty S o li cit o r. L o ck ettd id n o t sub m itev iden ce o f a n ap p ea l t o the D au p h in C o u n tyS o li cit o r, n o r d id h e c laim to h a v e p u rsu e d su c h a n a p p e a l.

### 4

T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed r econs i der at i on. I texpl ai ned that , even i f i ti s as s um ed t hatL ockettfi l ed an a ppeal t o the D auphi n C ount ySol i ci t orand compl et ed the gr i evanc e p ro c e ss , h is e x h a u stio n o f a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies o c c u rre d o n lya f ter th e f ili n g o f h is c o m p lain t. B e c a u se th e P riso n L iti g a tio n R e f o rm A c t (“ P L R A ” ) re q u ire s a p riso n e r to e x h a u st b e f

o re f ili n g su it, L o c k e tt d id n o t sa tisf yth e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t. Lo c k e t tt i me l yf

i l e d t h i s a p p e a l , a n d h e h a s b e e n g r a n t e d l e a v e t o p r o c e e d i n f o r ma pau peri s. T his C ou rthas app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. B ecause L ockett ’ s appea l l acks an ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw orfac t , w e w i l l di s m i s s i tpur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). A s th e D istric t C o u rt o b se rv e d , the P L R A p ro v id e s th a t an in m a te m u st re f ra in fr om br i ngi ng s ui t“unt i l s uch admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es as ar e ava i l abl e ar e exha us t ed. ” 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). “[ T ]h e P L R A ’s e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t ap p lies to a ll i n m a te s u its aboutpr i s on l i fe, w hethert heyi nvol ve gene r al ci r cumst ance s orpar t i cul arepi s odes , and w he t he rt he ya l l e ge e xc e s s i ve fo r c e ors ome o t he rw r on g. ” Por t e rv. N us s l e , 53 4 U. S. 5 1 6 , 5 3 2 (2 0 0 2 ). P ro p e r e x h a u stio n re q u ire s th a t an in m a te p ro c e e d th ro u g h a ll av a ilab le ste p s in th e a d m in istra tiv e re v iew p ro c e ss , an d th a t th e in m a te d o so in a c c o rd a n c e w ith es t abl i s hed dea dl i nes and pr ocedur al rul es s o t hatt he r evi ew i ng bodycan a ddr es s es t he i s s ues r ai s ed. See W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U . S. 81, 90 ( 2006) . C our t s have r ecogni zed t hatan i nm at e ca nnots at i s fyt he PL R A byexhaus t i ng admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es aft erfi l i ng s ui t . See, e. g. , J ohns on v. J ones , 340 F. 3d 624, 627 ( 8t h C i r . 2003) ( “[I ] n cons i der i ng

### 5

m oti on s t o d i sm i ss forfai l ure t o ex hau stun der sect i on 19 97 e(a) , t he d i stri ctcou rtm ust lo o k to th e tim e o f

f ili n g , n o t th e tim e th e d istric t co u rt is re n d e rin g its d e c isio n , to det erm i ne i f exha us t i on has occurr ed. I f exha us t i on w as notcompl et ed att he t i m e of fil ing , d ism issal i s m an d atory . ”). H er e, L ockettdat ed hi s compl ai ntJ ul y28, 2008, i tw as fi l ed i n s t at e courton A u g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , a n d it w a s e n te re d o n th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d o c k e t o n S e p te m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 8 . A ss u m in g a rg u e n d o th a t S e p tem b e r 8 re f lec ts th e d a te o n w h ich L o c k e tt file d su it, it i s cl earfr om L ockett ’ s ow n r epr es ent at i ons and s ubm i s s i ons t hathe di d notcompl et e the admi ni s t r at i ve r evi ew pr oces s pr i ort o t hatdat e. L ockettr ece i ved an i nt erm edi at e- l evel r es pons e t o hi s gr i evanc e fr om t he Pr i s on B oar d Sol i ci t oron Sept ember10. A s s um i ng t hatL ockettpur s ued the nextl evel i n t he admi ni s t r at i ve pr oces s t hr ough an appe al t o t he D a u p h in C o u n tyS o licito r, th a t ap p e a l n e c e ss a rilyo c c u rre d a f ter h e h a d f

iled su it i n fede r al cour t . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed the mot i on t o di s m i s s and d ism issed the c o m p lai n t w ith o u t prejud ice f o r fa il u re to c o m p lyw ith § 1 9 9 7 e(a ). F o r th ese rea so n s, w e w il l dism iss th e a p p ea l pu rsua n t t o § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).