1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID GREEN,

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 09-11994

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

ARTURO AVILES and

STEVEN CITCHEN,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Doc. #13). Defendants ask the Court to dismiss David Green’s Complaint for failure to

exhaust his administrative remedies. 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Green says Arturo Aviles confiscated his property, and Defendants conspired to

have him placed in segregation because he filed a grievance against the staff at the

Milan Correctional Institution for harassment, intimidation, and threatening conduct.

Green filed a Complaint on May 26, 2009 alleging Defendants violated his civil

rights and his freedom of speech. 

2:09-cv-11994-VAR-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/03/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 139
2

III. ANALYSIS

The exhaustion provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) says, “No

action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. §1983], 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.” 42 U.S.C.

§1997e(a). A prisoner must comply with a system’s critical procedural rules to “properly

exhaust” a claim. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006). This requirement was

clarified in Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007):

Compliance with prison grievance procedures . . . is all that is required by

the PLRA to “properly exhaust.” The level of detail necessary in a

grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system

to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not

the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.

Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. Because Michigan Department of Corrections’ Policy Directive

03.02.130 did not require a prisoner to “name all defendants” when filing grievances, the

Jones Court held this was not necessary to comply with the exhaustion provision. Id.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an Administrative Remedy Program that

requires inmates to present an issue of concern informally to staff. If informal resolution

is unsuccessful, the inmate must submit a formal written Administrative Remedy

Request. If the inmate is not satisfied with the response to his Request, he may submit

a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal to the Regional Director. If the inmate is not

satisfied with the response from the Regional Director, he may appeal to the Office of

General Counsel.

On May 7, 2009, Green filed an Administrative Remedy Request alleging

Defendants wrote two false reports. Green’s Request was denied on May 20, 2009. He

2:09-cv-11994-VAR-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/03/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 140
3

appealed on May 21, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the Regional Director said Green’s

claim was forwarded to the appropriate entity for review, and Green could appeal to the

Office of General Counsel. Green’s appeal was received at the Office of General

Counsel on July 9, 2009, but it was rejected because Green submitted more than one

continuation page and did not submit the correct number of copies. There is no

evidence that Green re-submitted his appeal. 

Green filed another Administrative Remedy Request on May 15, 2009 alleging

Aviles violated his civil rights. Green’s Request was denied on June 3, 2009. His

appeal was denied on June 25, 2009; there is no evidence that Green appealed to the

Office of General Counsel.

Green’s claims against Defendants are dismissed; he did not exhaust all

administrative remedies available under the Administrative Remedy Program before

filing a Complaint on May 26, 2009. See Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th

Cir. 1999) (“While we recognize that plaintiff made some attempts to go through the

prison’s grievance procedures, we must dismiss plaintiff’s complaint because he filed

his federal complaint before allowing the administrative process to be completed.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion; Green’s Complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

2:09-cv-11994-VAR-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/03/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 141
4

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: December 3, 2009

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and David Green by electronic means

or U.S. Mail on December 3, 2009.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11994-VAR-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/03/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 142