1

ALD-224 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2175

___________

STEVEN BELL,

Appellant

v.

JOHN SKENDALL, SNU UNIT MANAGER; MICHAEL HARLOW, 

SUPERINDENENT; WENDELL PAZT, SNU PSYCH; MAXINE OVERTON, 

HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATOR

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-11-cv-00310)

District Judge: Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter, Magistrate Judge

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 12, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 19, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.
2

Steven Bell appeals pro se

Steven Bell is a Pennsylvania state prisoner, incarcerated at the State Correctional 

Institution at Albion (SCI Albion). He filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against 

officials of the Special Needs Unit (SNU) and the health care administrator at SCI 

Albion. Bell alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and 

Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution by removing him from the 

SNU despite his need for mental health treatment.

from the order of the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his case. Because the appeal is lacking in 

arguable merit, we will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). 

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. In their motion the defendants raised the affirmative defense 

that Bell had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, disputing Bell’s claim in his 

complaint that he had filed grievances which had been denied. The defendants attached to 

their motion a sworn declaration by Leilani Sears, an administrative officer responsible 

for reviewing prison grievance records, who stated that Bell “has not properly appealed 

any grievance to final review,” and attached in turn copies of Bell’s filings. The District 

Court1

 1 The parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(c).

issued an order which, inter alia, advised the parties that the motion may be 

treated as a motion for summary judgment and advised Bell that he could respond to the 

defendant’s motion with opposing affidavits. Because Bell merely responded with a 
3

motion to amend his complaint and failed to address the question of exhaustion at all, the 

District Court granted the defendants’ motion

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291, and because Bell is 

proceeding in forma pauperis, we review the appeal for possible dismissal under 28 

U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). Our review is plenary. See Digacomo v. Teamsters Pension Trust

Fund of Phila. and Vicinity, 420 F.3d 220, 222 n.4 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating standard of 

review over dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)), see McGreevy v. 

Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review over an order 

granting summary judgment). An appeal must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) 

if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.Williams

Exhaustion is required by 42 U.S.C. §1997(e) before an inmate suit can be 

maintained. 

, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). 

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001). Exhaustion of administrative 

remedies must be in accordance with applicable regulations and policies, and 

noncompliance cannot be excused by the courts. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83 

(2006). Failure to comply with procedural requirements of the applicable prison’s 

grievance system will result in a procedural default of the claim. Spruill v. Gillis

Leilani Sears’ sworn declaration explains why, although Bell appears to have filed 

grievances, none was appealed to final review. Because Bell did not challenge Sears’ 

declaration, let alone do so in a way that created a “genuine dispute as to any material 

, 372 

F.3d 218, 227-32 (3d Cir.2004).
4

fact,” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the District Court properly 

granted the defendants’ motion. 

Accordingly, this appeal is lacking in arguable legal merit, and we will dismiss it 

according to 28 U.S.C. §19158(e)(2).