# United States C ou rt of App eals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604
Submi tte d December 9, 2013 * Deci ded December 10, 2013

Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circ uit Judge
ILANA DIAM OND ROVNER, Circ uit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge
No. 13-2137 WILLIE J. GRIFF IN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. BELINDA AUTERSON, Defen dant-Appellee

. A p p e a lf r o mt he Uni t e dS t a te sD i s t r i c t C o u r t fo rt he S o u t he rn D i s t r i c t o f I l l i n o i s . No. 11-cv-110-JP G-P MF J. Ph i l Gi lbert, Judge

. O R D E R
Wi lli e Griffi n, a federal i nmate, challen ges the dis mi ssal of hi s ci vil- rights law sui t again st a di sci pli nary hear i ng offi cer based on hi s fai lure to exhaust hi s admini strat i ve remedies

. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a). Bec ause G riffi n di d not ex haus t tho se remedi es before he sued, we affi rm the j udgment. NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

After exami ning the briefs and the recor d, we have conclu ded that o ral * arg ument i s unnecess ary . Thus the appeal i s submi tte d on the briefs and the recor d. See F E D

. R. A P P

. P. 34(a)( 2)(C).No. 13-2137 Page 2

The ti mi ng of Griffi n’s di sci pli nary hear i ng and admi ni strat i ve appeals i n relat i on to thi s su i t ar e not in di spute. Gri ffin was charged wi th violatin g prison rules by arg ui ng wi th staff i n late 2010 after they t urned away two unapprov ed vis i tor s. Th e di sci pli nary o ffi cer who rev i ewed the charges, Beli nda Auterson, held a hearing i n January 2011 and completed her repo rt i n April. She conc luded that Griffi n had been in an unau thor i zed area, had re fus ed to o bey staff, and h ad been i nsolent. Before A uterson fi ni shed her repor t, Griffi n su ed the guar ds for allegedly falsi fyi ng the charge s agai nst hi m. Once Auterson completed her r epor t, Griffi n added her as a defend ant. (The other defendants w ere dis mi ssed at sc reening, and G riffin does not challenge that dis mi ssal .) Three months after addin g Auter son, Gri ffin admi ni strat i vely appealed the di sci pli nary repo rt, and the charges were re manded f or a new heari ng. After another ro und of appeals, pri son staff expun ged the charg es in Dec ember 2011. Three months later , Auter son answ ered t he complai nt i n thi s su i t, r ai si ng her ex haus tion defen se. Although Griffi n ini tiall y was allowed to pro ceed i n forma pauperi s, the di stric t court r evo ked that status after cor rectly deter mi ni ng that Gr i ffin previously had i ncu rr ed at least thr ee strikes. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Griffin v. DeRosa , No. 03-5597-RBK (D. N.J . June 4, 2004) (di smi ssing entire sui t concerni ng pris on blackout for fai lure to state clai m), aff’d 153 F. App’x 851 (3d Ci r. 2005) ; Griffin v. Florida , No. 03-13769-C (11th Ci r. Nov 26, 2003) (ruli ng that appeal was fri vo lous); Griffin v. Escambia Cnty. Sherif f’s Dep’t, No. 3:03cv30-LAC-MD (N.D. Fl. Ju ly 10, 2003) (di smi ssing entire sui t challengi ng tr ansfer fro m state to federal cus tody for fail ure to state clai m).
Auter son later mov ed for summary judgment, r epeating that Griffi n had fai led to e xhaust hi s admini strat i ve r emedi es before sui ng her, as required by § 1997e(a). She sub mi tte d affi davits s howi ng that Gr i ffin admi ni strat i vely appealed the di sci pli nary repo rt three months after addi ng her as a defendant, leadi ng to hi s eventual suc cess i n obtaining a new di sci pli nary hear i ng. Griffi n opposed the motion, arguing that he had exhausted hi s admini strat i ve appeals before Aute rson raised exhaus tion as an affi rmative defense i n her answer. The m agis tr ate j udge i n charge of di scovery recommended di smi ssal based on Gri ffin’s fai lure to complete the admi ni strat i ve gr i evance pro cess before bringi ng sui t. The di stric t court adopted t he recommendati on and di smi ssed G riffi n’s su i t wi thout pr ejudic e. After Gri ffin belatedly obj ected to the di smi ssal, the court reaffi rmed i ts conclu si on that dism i ssal was p ro per, not i ng that Gri ffin su ed Auter son months bef or e fi ni shing the pr i son’s grievance process, vi olating the exhaustion requi rement o f § 1997e(a).No. 13-2137 Page 3

On appeal Gri ffi n mai ntai ns that becau se he had c ompleted the admin i strat i ve appeals process before Aute rson raised h er ex haus tion defen se, the di stric t j udge err ed i n di smi ssing hi s su i t. But Griffi n mi sun derstands § 1997e(a). T he prov i si on requires pris oners to exhaust admi ni strat i ve r emedi es before they fi le sui t, not just before t he exhausti on defense i s rai sed. See Bu rrell v. Powers , 431 F.3d 282, 284–85 (7th Cir. 2005). Exhausti ng before sui ng allows the pris on admi ni strat or s a ch ance to re medy possi ble mi stakes before court i nterv ention and ensures that pris oners concentrat e on the gr i evance pro cess , not liti gation. See Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 89–90 (2006); Ford v. Johnson , 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004). T hus , even t hough Griffi n di d eventually exhaust hi s admini strat i ve r emedi es wh i le thi s su i t was pending, the court corr ectly di smi ssed h i s su i t wi thout pr ejudic e. See Ford, 362 F.3d at 401 (ex plai ni ng that “if the pris oner do es exhaust, bu t fi les su i t ear ly” di smi ssal wi thout pr ejudic e i s correct response so “the premat ure action m ay be followed by a new su i t that unques tionabl y post-dates the admi ni strat i ve deci si on”).
Gri ffi n repli es that, if

exhausti on bars thi s su i t, the dis tr i ct court would have di smi ssed i t when the court screened hi s compl ai nt addi ng Auter son as a defendant. But exhausti on i s an affi rmative defense that i nmates need not antic i pate and refute in their complaints. Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007); Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 903 (7th Ci r. 2011). Here, mor eov er, t he court could not hav e di smi ssed at sc reening the clai m agai nst Auterson because G riffi n alleged i n hi s amend ed complai nt that he had completed the gr i evance pro cedure at the t i me of hi s Apri l 2011 amendm ents addi ng Auter son as a defendant.
Gri ffi n alternat i vely asserts that the dis tr i ct judge er red in d i smi ssing the sui t becau se, he says, the adm i ni strat i ve appeals process was “unavai lable” since i t lim i ted hi s potential m onetar y r ecover y. But the g rievance process i s avai lable i f i t can offer any potent i al relief

, even if i t is not t he pris oner’ s preferr ed remedy. See Porter v. Nuss le , 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) ; Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 808–09 (7th Cir. 2006). Here the admi ni strat i ve pr ocess offered Griffi n some reli ef becau se i t could—and di d—expunge hi s di sci pli nary charg es.
We have r eviewed G riffi n’s remai ni ng assertions, and they all lack merit.
AFF IRM ED.