4 Knuckles El, et al. v. Toombs, et al. No. 98-2181

opportunity to fulfill the requirements of Brown, which they

did not do. We, therefore, simply hold here that where theallegedly "mixed" complaint does not carry out the pleadingrequirements set forth in Brown, it will be dismissed. 

2. Plaintiffs contend that they have no “available

remedy” because they seek monetary damages. The

complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary reliefand plaintiffs contend that their request for monetarydamages, which are not available under the Michigan system,exempts them from the exhaustion requirement. Where theprison has an administrative process that will review thecomplaint, plaintiff must exhaust even though moneydamages are not available. Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876,878 (6th Cir. 1999).

3. Plaintiffs assert that claims of excessive force or

assault by prison guards do not fall within the term“prison conditions” as used in the Prison LitigationReform Act. Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 642-44 (6th

Cir. 1999), decides this issue against plaintiffs’ contention.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED. 

1

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-

Pursuant to Sixth Circ

ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 F

File Name: 00a0

UNITED STATES COU

FOR THE SIXTH 

____________

DEMETRIUS KNUCKLES EL;ERRICK E. PAYTON-BEY;MICHAEL VAUGHN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

RAYMOND G. TOOMBS,Warden, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United St

for the Western District of Mic

No. 97-00362—Robert Holme

Submitted: May 

Decided and Filed: J

Before: MERRITT, JONES, and 

____________

COUNSE

ON BRIEF: Demetrius Knuckles E. Payton-Bey, Ionia, Michigan, Michigan, pro se. Mark WDEPARTMENT OF ATT
2 Knuckles El, et al. v. Toombs, et al. No. 98-2181

1Section 1997e(a), as amended, provides:

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditionsunder section 1983 of this title [i.e., 42], or any other Federallaw, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other

CORRECTIONS DIVISION, Lansing, Michigan, forAppellees.

_________________

OPINION

_________________

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This prisoners' appeal in a

§ 1983 prison assault case is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997erequiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiffs,all inmates at Ionia Maximum Facility in Ionia, Michigan,allege that on numerous occasions between October 12, 1995,and March 18, 1997, defendants violated their rights under theFirst, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by using excessiveforce and engaging in "retaliatory harassment." Plaintiffsconcede that they have not exhausted all availableadministrative remedies but argue that their complaint shouldnot be dismissed because some of the claims have beenexhausted and exhaustion is not necessary for theunexhausted claims. The issues before us are as follows:

1. Plaintiffs contend that their cases should not be

dismissed because their complaints contain bothexhausted and unexhausted claims. We reserve to anotherday the question of whether exhausted claims in a "mixed"complaint should be addressed when such claims otherwisemeet the pleading requirements or whether such a complaintshould be dismissed in its entirety. The complaint here doesnot meet the pleading requirements set forth in Brown v.

Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525U.S. 833 (1998), and it was therefore properly dismissed. InBrown, we held that the statutory language in 42 U.S.C.§ 1997e(a)1 -- "no action shall be brought until all available

No. 98-2181 Knuckles El, et 

correctional facility until such admavailable are exhausted.

administrative remedies are exhinterpreted to mean precisely whathat a federal court should not premof any such action." Id. We held this language, a prisoner must specificity and show that they attaching a copy of the applicable ato the complaint or, in the absence describe with specificity the adminoutcome. The reason for the respecificity both the claims preexhaustion is so that the district couif the issues raised can be decided 

District courts should not have 

evidentiary hearings in order simpshould reach the merits or decllanguage of § 1997e ("No action sthe absence of particularized exhaustion showing the nature proceeding and its outcome, the under § 1997e. There are thousaSixth Circuit district courts every ythousand in the court of appeals. averments, a district court must holotherwise spend a lot of time with eout whether it has jurisdiction to r

Here, plaintiffs simply state in t

claims have been exhausted documentation or other details reqnone of the particularized avermencourt to determine what, if any, clor what has been done in an attemAccordingly, the district court procomplaint without prejudice after