FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G U ST 27, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11949 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 71 -C V -C D L -4 D A L E M . T H O M P S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e llan t, v ersu s W I L L I A M W . A D A M S O N , W a r d e n , D e f e n d an t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 27, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an dK R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D ale T h o m p so n , a p riso n erp ro ce ed in g p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s2

di s m i s s a l , pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1915A , of hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 c om pl a i ntf or fa i l ure t o st at e acl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef m aybe grant ed. F or the re as on s that f o l l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D T h o m p so n , i n carcerated in the M u sco g ee C o u n ty P ri so n i n C o l u m b u s, G e or gi a , f

i l e d apr o s e 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a ga i ns tW ar de n W i l l i a m A da m s on, in h is in d iv idu a l an do f

f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , a lle g in g c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s in conn ec t i on w i th A dam son’ s w i thh ol di ng of a “ S el f- H elp L i t i gat i on M anual ” that T hom ps on ha d or de r e d thr ough the m a i l . S pe c i f i c a l l y , T hom ps on a l l e ge d tha tthe de pr i va t i on of

the m a nua l vi ol a t e d hi s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o pe t i t i on the g o v e rn m e n t f

o rr e d r e s s o f

g r ie v a n c e s , h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to b e s e c u r e in h is p e r s o n , h is F if

th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t a g a in s t s e lf in c r im in a tio n , h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to b e f r e e f r o m c ru e l an du n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t, an dh is F o u rt een th A m en d m en tri g h tt o eq u al p ro t ect i o n . A cco rd i n g t o T h o m p so n , as a r e s ul tof the s e c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons , he s uf f e r e d pa i n, e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s , a nd m e nt a l a ngui s h. H e r e que s t e d $500, 000 i n c om pe ns a t oryda m a ge s a nd $750, 000 i n p u n i t i v e d am ag es. A d am so n m o v edt o d i sm i ss th e co m p l ai n tfo r fai l u re t o ex h au st adm i ni strat i ve re m edi es as re qu i re d b y the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A ct3

(“ P L R A ”) , 42 U . S . C . § 1 99 7e(a ), because T ho m pson had n otfi l ed a f orm alw ri tt en gri evance bef

ore f i l i ng the com pl ai nt . A cc ordi ng t o A dam son, T ho m pson w as no t i fi ed thatthe m anual const i tut ed contraband m at er i albecause i tcoul d b e use d as a w eapo n, and T ho m pson never r es po nd ed t o thi s not i ce . T ho m pson re pl i ed that he had fi l ed a gri evance, t o w hi ch he rec ei ved n o res po nse. A dam son then cl ar i fi ed thatT ho m pson had fi l ed an i nform algri evance, bu thad n otfi l ed a f orm al g r ie v a n c e o ra n ap p e a l a s r e q u ir e db yp r is o n p r o c e du r e . T he m agi strat e j ud ge re vi ew ed the re cord and cou l d n otconcl ud e that T h o m p s o n h a df

a ile dto e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . I n s te a d , th e m a g is tr a te r e c om m e nde d tha tthe c om pl a i ntbe di s m i s s e d f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915A , be c aus e T hom ps on ha d nota l l e ge d phy s i c a l i nj urya s r e qui r e d by 42 U . S . C . § 1 99 7e(e ) of the P L R A . O ver T ho m pson ’ s obj ec t i on , the di stri ctcourt a dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on and di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt . T hom ps on n o w ap p e a ls . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, T h o m p s o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din d is m is s in g h is c o mp l a i n t . W e r e v i e w d e n o v o th e d i s mi s s a l o f ac o mp l a i n tu n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 5 A . H u g h es v . L o tt , 3 5 0 F . 3 d1 1 5 7 , 1 1 5 9 -6 0 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). “ P ro se p l ead i n g s are h el dt o a l ess stri n g en tst an d ardth an p l ead i n g s d raft edb y att o rn eys4

a nd w i l l , the r e f

or e , be l i be r a l l yc ons true d. ” T anne nbaum v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 148 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). B utfe dera l court s have di sc re t i on t o d i sm i ss pro s e c l a i m s i f

the yl a c k a n a r guabl e ba s i s e i the ri n f a c tori n l aw . N e i t z ke v. W i l l i a m s , 490 U . S . 319, 324- 25, 109 S . C t . 1827, 1831- 32, 104 L . E d. 2d 338 (198 9). T h e P L R A p ro v i d es th at“ [n ] o F ed eral ci v i l act i o n m ay b e b ro u g h tb y a pr i s one rc onf

i ne d i n aj a i l , pr i s on, orothe rc orr e c t i ona l f a c i l i ty , f orm e nt a l or em ot i on ali nj ury s uffe re d w hi l e i n cust od y w i tho uta pri or show i ng of ph ys i ca l i nj ury . ” 42 U . S . C . § 1997e ( e ) . B utthi s c ourtha s he l d tha t§ 1997e ( e ) doe s not pr e c l ude apr i s one r ’ s r e c ove ryof nom i na lda m a ge s , e ve n i n the abs e nc e of ph ys i ca l i nj ury, w here the pri soner e st abl i shes a vi ol at i on of a f un dam ent al c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght . H ughe s , 350 F . 3d a t1162. H e r e , c a r e f

ul r e vi e w of

T hom ps on’ s appe l l a t e br i e f r e ve a l s tha the doe s not ex p l ai n o r ev en ad d ress how th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din d is m is s in g h is c o m p la in t, a n dh e f a ils to a d dr e s s th e le g a l b a s is up o n w h ic h th e c o u rt r e lie d

— th a t h e f a ile dto s t a t e ac l a i m up o n wh i c h r e l i e f m ayb e g r an t e d , p u r s u an tt o 2 8 U. S . C . § 1 9 1 5 A, b e c au s e h e f

a ile dto a lle g e p h y s ic a l in ju rya s r e qu ir e db y4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( e ) . Inst ea d, T ho m pson m er el y argues the m er i t s of hi s c on st i tut i on alcl ai m s. E ven c ons trui ng T hom ps on’ s br i e f l i be r a l l y , the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha the pr e s e nt s a nyIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cedent all of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down bef ore the close of

business on September 30, 1981. 5 ar gu m entor anal ys i s r egar di ng the i ss ue on appeal . A cc ordi ng l y, T ho m pson has abando ned thi s i ss ue. S ee D avi s v. H i l l E ng ’ g, Inc. , 54 9 F . 2d 31 4, 32 4 (5th C i r. 19 77 ) (hol di ng thatthe m er e m ent i on i n an app el l at e bri ef thatthe di stri ctcourt 1 w as i n err or, abse ntany s peci fi c argum entas t o h ow the courtw as i n err or, w as i nsuffi ci entt o p re se ntthe m att erfor a dj ud i cat i on on appeal ). W e there fore af fi rm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f T h o m p s o n ’s c o m p la in t. I I I . CONCL US I ON F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e AF F I RM .