1

 On November 8, 2005, the Court received a change of address from plaintiff which indicates that he currently resides

at a halfway house in Dallas, Texas. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

F.T. PRATT, III, ID # 05070360, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-2033-K

)

LUPE VALDEZ, et al., )

Defendants. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

On October 4, 2005, plaintiff, while incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail,1

 filed this civil

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights related to the conditions of his imprisonment. (See generally, Compl.) He specifically alleges deliberate indifference to

his serious medical needs by not providing proper and adequate medical care for his mental illness.

(Id.) He sues the Dallas County Sheriff, Dallas County, and two physicians at Dallas County Jail.

(Id. at 1-3.) No process has been issued in this case. 

II. EXHAUSTION

A prisoner must fully exhaust administrative remedies before pursing a civil action concerning prison conditions. Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code, as amended by

the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02033-K Document 7 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 25
2

respect to prison conditions under § 1983 of this title, or any other federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” This “exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life,

whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive

force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is a prerequisite

to suit even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings such as money

damages. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740-41 (2001). 

To exhaust in accordance with § 1997e(a), a prisoner in a the Dallas County Jail must pursue

his administrative remedies under the two-step grievance procedure applicable in that facility. 

The Dallas County Jail currently provides a two-step procedure for presenting inmate

grievances. The first step requires the prisoner to submit a grievance to any staff

member. After noting the date and time the grievance is received, the staff member

will forward the grievance to the on-duty shift supervisor, who will in turn forward

it to the Grievance Board for review. After review and an investigation, if necessary,

the Grievance Board will issue a written decision. Upon receiving the written

decision, the inmate will have five days to submit a written appeal to the Inmate

Grievance Appeal Board. The Appeal Board will review all documents submitted in

connection with the appeal and issue a decision, which may be reviewed by the

Sheriff. 

See Medrano v. Dallas County Jail Med. Staff, No. 3:04-CV-1913-M, 2005 WL 106573, *2 (N.D. Tex.

Jan. 18, 2005) (findings, conclusions, and recommendation citing Burnett v. Robertson, No. 3-01-CV1284-P, 2001 WL 1577495, *2 (N.D. Tex. 2001)), accepted as modified by 2005 WL 877925 (N.D.

Tex. Apr. 14, 2005). 

Exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory, and the requirement is strictly construed. See

Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir. 2003). When a prisoner fails to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, without a valid excuse, the Court properly dismisses the action

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02033-K Document 7 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 26
3

without prejudice to its refiling after the prisoner exhausts his administrative remedies. See Wendell

v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 890-91 (5th Cir. 1998). The Court does not “inquire whether administrative

procedures satisfy minimum acceptable standards of fairness and effectiveness”; prisoners simply

“must exhaust such administrative remedies as are available, whatever they may be.” Alexander v.

Tippah County, 351 F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted),

cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1012 (2004). Furthermore, substantial compliance with administrative procedures is insufficient to permit pursuit of a federal lawsuit. Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357,

358 (5th Cir. 2001). Unless the prisoner pursues his “grievance remedy to conclusion”, he has not

exhausted “available remedies.” Id. 

In this instance, plaintiff checks a blank on the standard form for his § 1983 complaint which

indicates that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. (See Compl. at 3.) He also attaches

a grievance that he filed on September 18, 2005, and a response dated September 23, 2005, which

indicates that the “Grievance has been received and will be investigated.” (See id. at 9-10.) He

explains that, although the jail is accorded sixty days to take action on his grievance, he was compelled to file his § 1983 complaint because he “need[s] the Court to get involved now” so that he

can receive necessary mental health services. (Id. at 8.) He asserts that he has exhausted his administrative remedies because there are no other steps to pursue after he receives a response from the

grievance committee. (Id.) 

Plaintiff misconstrues the administrative remedies that were available to him as an inmate

in the Dallas County Jail. He has not pursued his grievance to conclusion. Instead, he has attempted to truncate the grievance procedure by filing the instant action before according the jail the

opportunity to address his grievance through its established procedure. He has provided no adequate

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02033-K Document 7 Filed 12/01/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 27
4

excuse for not exhausting available administrative remedies. He simply asserts that he has

substantially complied with the exhaustion requirements, and that he needs the Court’s involvement

now so that he can receive necessary mental health services. Substantial compliance with the

grievance procedure does not constitute adequate exhaustion. The bald assertion regarding need

for mental health services is insufficient to excuse the lack of exhaustion. Furthermore, any urgency

that may have existed when plaintiff filed this action ended when he left the Dallas County Jail for

the halfway house in which he currently resides. Until plaintiff pursues his grievance to conclusion,

he has not exhausted his available administrative procedures.

Because plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and has provided no

adequate excuse for such failure his complaint should be dismissed. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court summarily DISMISS

plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

SIGNED this 1st day of December, 2005. 

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02033-K Document 7 Filed 12/01/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 28
5

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on plaintiff by mailing a copy to him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who

desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve written

objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made.

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. Failure to file

written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten days after

being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds

of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02033-K Document 7 Filed 12/01/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 29