[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-14893

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-01319-MMH-MCR

TROY R. JACKSON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

OFFICER GRIFFIN, 

Individual Capacity, 

SGT. SEAN JOHNSON, 

a.k.a. Rocksteady, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(February 15, 2019)

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-14893 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Troy Jackson, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the 

dismissal of his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

(“PLRA”). On appeal, he argues that the district court erred because he submitted 

his administrative appeal within the 15-day time limit, and any delay in prison 

officials processing the appeal was outside of his control.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of suit for failure to exhaust 

available administrative remedies under the PLRA. Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 

1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 2011). Pro se filings are held to a less stringent standard 

than those drafted by attorneys and are liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United 

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

The PLRA provides that no action shall be brought with respect to prison 

conditions under § 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner until 

the prisoner has exhausted his administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). To 

“properly exhaust” his administrative remedies, a prisoner must complete the 

administrative review process, as set forth in the applicable prison grievance 

process. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). A prisoner cannot satisfy the 

exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective 

administrative grievance or appeal. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006).

Case: 17-14893 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 Page: 2 of 4 
3

In determining whether a prisoner has exhausted his administrative 

remedies, the district court applies a two-step process. Turner v. Burnside, 541 

F.3d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir. 2008). First, the court determines whether the factual 

allegations in the complaint conflict with the defendants’ response and, if so, takes 

the plaintiff’s facts as true. Id. Second, if the complaint is not subject to dismissal 

at the first step, the court makes specific findings to resolve the disputed facts, and 

the defendant bears the burden of proving that the prisoner failed to exhaust his 

remedies. Id.

We review the district court’s factual findings as to exhaustion of 

administrative remedies for clear error. Whatley v. Smith, 898 F.3d 1072, 1082 

(11th Cir. 2018). To find that the court’s findings were clearly erroneous, we must 

be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made; if the court’s 

account of the evidence is plausible, we may not reverse. Id. (finding that the 

district court permissibly weighed the evidence regarding exhaustion when it 

credited prison officials’ affidavits over the prisoner’s exhibits).

In Florida, to exhaust his administrative remedies, a prisoner generally must 

complete the following: (1) an informal grievance to the staff member responsible 

for the particular area of the problem, (2) a formal grievance with the warden, and 

(3) an appeal to the Office of the Secretary of the Florida Department of 

Corrections (“FDOC”). Fla. Admin. Code §§ 33-103.005(1)(a) and (b), 33-

Case: 17-14893 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 Page: 3 of 4 
4

103.006(1), 33-103.007(1). An appeal to the Office of the Secretary of the FDOC 

must be received within 15 calendar days from the date the response to the formal 

grievance is returned to the inmate. Id. § 33-103.011(1)(c). To determine whether 

an appeal has been timely filed, the FDOC will compare the receipt date on the 

appeal form with the return date of the formal grievance. Id. § 103.007(3)(a).

Here, the district court did not err when it dismissed Jackson’s amended 

complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. According to Jackson,

he filed his administrative appeal within 15 calendar days of the date the denial of his 

formal grievance was returned to him. According to the defendants, however, his 

appeal was filed more than 15 calendar days after the date the denial was returned 

to him. Both accounts of the facts were plausible and supported by the exhibits, so 

the court crediting the defendants’ version of the facts was not clearly erroneous, 

and we may not reverse.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-14893 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 Page: 4 of 4