Source: http://ms.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170622_0000479.NMS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 20:40:04
Document Index: 706021

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§1997', '§1997', '§1983']

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greeville Division
MICHAEL D. CARROLL PLAINTIFF
SUPERINTENDENT EARNEST LEE, DEFENDANTS
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Michael D. Carroll, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. The plaintiff has brought the instant case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a federal cause of action against “[e]very person” who under color of state authority causes the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have failed to protect him from attack by other inmates, then retaliated against him for seeking relief through the Administrative Remedy Program and other channels. The defendants have moved [19] for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not exhaust the grievance process before filing suit. The plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and the deadline to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth below, the motion by the defendants for summary judgment will be granted and the case dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Carroll alleges that he was attacked in the prison kitchen on April 15, 2016. He submitted a handwritten grievance on April 18, 2016, regarding the assault to the Administrative Remedy Program (ARP). See Ex. A[1] at “Carroll 3.” However, under ARP procedures, Carroll's grievance regarding the assault could not be processed because Carroll had a backlog of previously filed grievances. See Ex. A at “Carroll 5.” Carroll was told on April 26, 2016, that if he wished to immediately pursue his latest grievance, then he must first withdraw, in writing, all pending grievances. Id. Carroll did so and received his first step response to the assault grievance denying his request on June 13, 2016 See Ex. A at “Carroll 7.” He appealed this denial to the second step on July 3, 2016. Id. Carroll then filed the instant suit on July 5, 2016. Doc. 1. Superintendent Lee then denied relief on the second and final step of the grievance process on August 22, 2016, and Carroll signed for receipt of the Second Step Response Form on August 26, 2016. See Ex. A at “Carroll 10.”
As set forth below, the instant case must be dismissed because Mr. Carroll did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court. Although exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, normally to be pled by a defendant, the court may dismiss a pro se prisoner case if failure to exhaust is apparent on the face of the complaint. Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2007). Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. §1997e et seq. - including its requirement that inmates exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing suit - in an effort to address the large number of prisoner complaints filed in federal courts. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202 (2007). Congress meant for the exhaustion requirement to be an effective tool to help weed out the frivolous claims from the colorable ones:
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a), requires prisoners to exhaust any available administrative remedies prior to filing suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The exhaustion requirement protects administrative agency authority, promotes efficiency, and produces “a useful record for subsequent judicial consideration.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.81, 89 (2006). A prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal” because “proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006); see also Johnson v. Ford, 261 F. App'x 752, 755 (5th Cir. 2008)(the Fifth Circuit takes “a strict approach” to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement)(citing Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir. 2003)); Lane v. Harris Cty. Med. Dep't, No. 06-20935, 2008 WL 116333, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan.11, 2008)(under the PLRA, “the prisoner must not only pursue all available avenues of relief; he must also comply with all administrative deadlines and procedural rules”). Indeed, “a prisoner must now exhaust administrative remedies even where the relief sought - monetary damages - cannot be granted by the administrative process.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001).