Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/2697490/Bolt-v-Dewalt-et-al-Document-No-5
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 11:24:11
Document Index: 313877870

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1915', '§542', '§1915', '§1915', '§1915', '§1915', '§1997']

Memorandum Opinion And Order: Narcotics Agents,
Original Title: Bolt v. Dewalt et al - Document No. 5
Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) the instant action is DISMISSED sua sponte (2) plf's motion to proceed IFP 2 is DENIED AS MOOT (3) this is a FINAL & APPEALABLE order (4) the court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith (5) this matter is STRICKEN from the active docket of the court. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester. (LKM)cc: COR 5:2006cv00071 Kentucky Eastern District Court
saveSave Bolt v. Dewalt et al - Document No. 5 For Later
Florence v. Decker, 10th Cir. (2005)
Bolt v. Dewalt et al Doc.
Case 5:06-cv-00071-KSF Document 5 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 1 of 5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY MAR 2 4 2306
LEXINGTON DIVISION AT LEXINGIUk
CLERK U S DISTRICT POURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-71-KSF
CHRISTOPHER J. BOLT PLAINTIFF
STEPHEN DEWALT, WARDEN, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff Christopher J. Bolt (“Bolt”), an individual presently confined at the Federal Medical
Center (“FMC”) in Lexington, Kentucky, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. $1331 under the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S.
388 (1 971) [Record No. 13. Bolt has also filed a motion to proceed informapauperis [Record No.
This matter is before the Court for initial screening. 28 U.S.C. $1915A; McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,607-08 (6th Cir. 1997). This is a pro se petition and, as such, it is
held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U S . 319
(1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U S . 519 (1972). The allegations in apro se petition must be taken
as true and construed in favor of the petitioner. See Malone v. Colyer, 710 F.2d 258,260 (6th Cir.
1983). However, 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) affords a court the authority to dismiss a case at any time
if the court determines the action: (i) is frivolous or malicious, or (ii) fails to state a claim upon
Case 5:06-cv-00071-KSF Document 5 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 2 of 5
In his complaint, Bolt alleges that defendants, by denying him participation in the Bureau of
Prison (“B0P”)’s CCC program for failure to properly fill out the paperwork when they knew that
he was blind, have violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. $12132.
Whatever the merits of Bolt’s legal claims, his complaint must be dismissed without prejudice on
two distinct grounds.
As the Court has previously informed Bolt in several prior lawsuits filed by him, a prisoner
seeking to challenge conditions incident to confinement in a civil rights suit must first exhaust all
available administrative remedies. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) provides:
“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under $ 1983 of this
correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are
42U.S.C. $1997e(a);see Boothv. Churner, 532U.S. 731,740-41 (2001); Porterv. Nussle, 534U.S.
516,532 (2002) (“the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life,
whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive
force or some other wrong.”). The Sixth Circuit insists that a prisoner clearly demonstrate strict
compliance with the statute as of the time of filing: a plaintiff must either attach copies of the
documents from the administrative grievance process, or if copies are not available, describe with
particularity the administrative steps he took and responses he received in the process. Brown v.
Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102,1104 (6th Cir. 1998); Knuckles El v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640,642 (6th Cir.
Case 5:06-cv-00071-KSF Document 5 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 3 of 5
2000). Unless the record demonstrates that the requirements of Section 1997e(a) have been met, a
district court must dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. Id.
Here, Bolt has not alleged, described, or documented any effort to initiate, let alone exhaust,
the BOP’S administrative grievance remedy set forth at 28 C.F.R. §§542.10-.19 (1998). Ordinarily,
when a prisoner fails to provide information and documentation demonstrating his exhaustion of
available remedies, the Court enters a Deficiency Order providing the prisoner with the opportunity
to cure the deficiency by submitting documentation to the Court showing that all remedies have been
exhausted on all claims prior to the filing of the complaint. In the present case, however, the Court
need not do so for the reason set forth below.
2. “Three Strikes” Order under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g)
Plaintiff Bolt has been before this Court on a number of occasions with similar claims arising
out his medical conditions and general prison conditions, and most have been dismissed for the same
reason: his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Bolt v. Snyder, Civil ActionNo. 03-123-
JMH (medical and privacy act claims dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Bolt
v. Booker, Civil Action No. 03-292-KSF (medical claims dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies); Bolf v. Booker, Civil Action No. 04-33-JMH (religious accommodation
claims dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Bolr v. Booker, Civil Action No.
04-249-KSF (medical claims; §1915(g) warning given); Bolt v. Booker, Civil Action No. 05-236-
JMH (habeas action challenging community program placement); Bolt v. Booker, Civil Action No.
05-469-KSF (medical and privacy act claims; dismissed under 6 1915(g)).
In the fourth of Plaintiffs suits to be dismissed for failure to exhaust, this Court advised Bolt
of the adverse consequences of his continued abuse of the judicial system. In Bolt v. Booker, Civil
Case 5:06-cv-00071-KSF Document 5 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 4 of 5
Action No. 04-249-KSF, the Court advised Bolt that, as a prisoner who has had three prior cases
dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, his right to file further suits “shall” be
suspended unless the prisoner “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g). Further, the Court advised Bolt that, as “a prisoner meeting the statutory condition of
having three prior actions dismissed for any of the reasons set out above may not be granted
permission to proceed without prepayment of fees under g1915.”
Apparently undeterred, Bolt filed his next action a few months later, challenging the failure
to place him in a halfway house in a Section 2241 proceeding. The Court declined to apply its prior
“Three Strikes” warning against Bolt because habeas proceedings are only quasi-civil in nature. Bolt
v. Booker, Civil Action No. 05-236-JMH. Bolt filed his next action in a different forum, the Western
District of Missouri, asserting claims under the Privacy Act and the Eighth Amendment related to
medical issues. After the case was transferred to this jurisdiction, the Court dismissed his complaint
under Section 1915(g) in light of the prior “Three Strikes” warning and because Bolt had not alleged
that he was in imminent danger. Bolt v. Booker, Civil Action No. 05-469-KSF. In the present case,
Bolt has not alleged any imminent danger to his health or life, nor would the facts described in his
complaint support such an assertion. Accordingly, Bolt’s complaint must be dismissed without
prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
1. The instant action is DISMISSED, sua sponre, without prejudice. 42 U.S.C.
§1997e(a); Brown v. Toornbs, 215 F.3d at 642; 28 U.S.C. $1915(g).
2. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forrna pauperis [Record No. 21 is DENIED AS
Case 5:06-cv-00071-KSF Document 5 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 5 of 5
3. This is a FINAL and APPEALABLE order.
4. The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
$1915(a)(3); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 610-11; Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949
5. This matter (06-71-KSF) is STRICKEN from the active docket of the Court.
This the $q4L of March, '2006.
KARL S. FORESTER, SENIOR JUDGE
Documents Similar To Bolt v. Dewalt et al - Document No. 5