Court Opinion

ID: 9915357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 15:01:35.643171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:33.113927
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10826   Document: 39-1    Date Filed: 01/05/2024   Page: 1 of 8

                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-10826
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JEROME W. BLACK, JR.,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       NURSE KIM RAYBURN,
       NURSE TAMEKA CRAWFORD,
       CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HEDDEN,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees,

       WARDEN,
USCA11 Case: 22-10826     Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2024    Page: 2 of 8

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-10826

                                                               Defendant.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00249-CDL-MSH
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Appellant Jerome Black appeals the district court’s order
       granting summary judgment to Appellees/Defendants, Nurse Kim
       Rayburn, Nurse Tameka Crawford, and Correctional Oﬃcer Hed-
       den, on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indiﬀerence claim.
       Black asserted that while he was conﬁned at Rutledge State Prison
       (“RSP”), the Appellees were deliberately indiﬀerent to his serious
       medical needs by failing to respond appropriately after he suﬀered
       serious burns to his right foot. The Appellees moved for summary
       judgment, arguing that Black failed to exhaust his administrative
       remedies; they did not violate Black’s Eighth Amendment rights;
       Black intentionally misrepresented a material fact; and Black’s
       claim for money damages against them in their oﬃcial capacities is
       barred. The magistrate judge found that Black failed to exhaust his
       administrative remedies because his grievance was untimely, and it
       recommended that summary judgment be granted to Appellees
       and the case be dismissed without prejudice. After a de novo review,
USCA11 Case: 22-10826      Document: 39-1          Date Filed: 01/05/2024   Page: 3 of 8

       22-10826                Opinion of the Court                          3

       the district court adopted the recommendation, granting summary
       judgment to the Appellees and dismissing Black’s complaint with-
       out prejudice. Having read the parties’ briefs and reviewed the rec-
       ord, we aﬃrm the district court’s order.
                                             I.
              We review de novo the district court’s application of the ex-
       haustion requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act
       (“PLRA”). Varner v. Shepard, 11 F.4th 1252, 1257 (11th Cir. 2021), cert.
       denied, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 1172 (2022). We review for clear
       error any factual ﬁndings related to the exhaustion of administra-
       tive remedies. Id. Otherwise, we accept as true the facts as set forth
       in the plaintiﬀ’s complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in his
       favor. Id.
                                             II.
              The PLRA provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with
       respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title . . . by
       a prisoner conﬁned in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility
       until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”
       42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “Thus, when a state provides a grievance pro-
       cedure for its prisoners, as Georgia does here, an inmate . . . must
       ﬁle a grievance and exhaust the remedies available under that pro-
       cedure before pursing a § 1983 lawsuit.” Varner, 11 F.4th at 1257
       (internal quotation marks omitted). “To exhaust administrative
       remedies in accordance with the PLRA, prisoners must properly
       take each step within the administrative process. If their initial
       grievance is denied, prisoners must then ﬁle a timely appeal.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10826      Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10826

       Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1378 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quota-
       tion marks and citation omitted).
              Ordinarily, an exhaustion defense should be raised in a mo-
       tion to dismiss or be treated as such if raised in a motion for sum-
       mary judgment, as in this case. Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1374-75 (internal
       quotation marks omitted). Because dismissal for failure to exhaust
       is not an adjudication on the merits, the court can resolve factual
       disputes using evidence outside the pleadings. Id. at 1376. Further,
       in resolving a factual dispute, the court may make credibility deter-
       minations. Id. at 1377-78 (ﬁnding that the district court did not
       clearly err in determining that plaintiﬀ’s allegation that he was de-
       nied access to a grievance form was not credible).
              When deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust ad-
       ministrative remedies, the court conducts a two-step inquiry.
       Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir. 2008). “First, the
       court looks to the factual allegations in the defendant’s motion to
       dismiss and those in the plaintiﬀ’s response, and if they conﬂict,
       takes the plaintiﬀ’s version of the facts as true.” Id. Taking the
       plaintiﬀ’s version of the facts as true, if the court determines that
       the plaintiﬀ failed to exhaust administrative remedies properly, the
       court should dismiss the complaint. Id. “If the complaint is not
       subject to dismissal at the ﬁrst step . . . the court then proceeds to
       make speciﬁc ﬁndings in order to resolve the disputed factual issues
       related to exhaustion.” Id. The defendant bears the burden of
       proof during this second step. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-10826      Document: 39-1       Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 5 of 8

       22-10826                Opinion of the Court                          5

               A prisoner need only exhaust administrative remedies that
       are available, or in other words, “capable of use for the accomplish-
       ment of [its] purpose.” Turner, 541 F.3d at 1084 (quoting Goebert v.
       Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir. 2007)). The burden is on
       the defendant to show that an administrative remedy is available,
       but “once that burden has been met, the burden of going forward
       shifts to the plaintiﬀ, who . . . must demonstrate that the grievance
       procedure was ‘subjectively’ and ‘objectively’ unavailable to him.”
       Geter v. Baldwin State Prison, 974 F.3d 1348, 1356 (11th Cir. 2020) (in-
       ternal quotation marks omitted). The Georgia Department of
       Corrections Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”), speciﬁcally
       SOP 227.02, provides a grievance procedure for inmates to exhaust
       their administrative remedies. Relevant here, the SOP states that
       an inmate must ﬁle an original grievance no later than ten days
       from the date of the grievance, but grievances ﬁled later than ten
       days may be considered upon “Good Cause.” SOP 227.02. The
       SOP deﬁnes “good cause” as a “legitimate reason involving unusual
       circumstances that prevented the Oﬀender from timely ﬁling a
       grievance,” for example, a serious illness, or being housed away
       from a facility covered by this procedure.
                                            III.
              Black asserts on appeal that the district court erred in dis-
       missing his claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies be-
       cause those remedies were not available to him. Black contends
       that, pursuant to the SOP, there was good cause for his late ﬁling
       and the prison oﬃcials’ rejection of his complaint was arbitrary and
       capricious. The district court erred, Black argues, because it
USCA11 Case: 22-10826      Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10826

       deferred to the prison oﬃcials’ determination. Black also claims
       that the grievance procedure was “unavailable” to him during the
       ten days allowed by the SOP because he suﬀered a serious injury
       that caused him signiﬁcant pain; he was hospitalized for ﬁve days
       out of the ten-day period; there was no kiosk for him to ﬁle a griev-
       ance; and a counselor instructed that he could not ﬁle a grievance
       until he returned to his assigned facility.
               The Appellees respond that although this court has not de-
       cided whether courts can review a prison oﬃcial’s discretionary de-
       cision not to consider a grievance for “good cause” and what stand-
       ard of review to apply, it does not matter here because the decision
       was correct under any standard of review. The Appellees assert
       that Black failed to carry his burden to show that the administrative
       remedies were unavailable due to his physical injury and pain, and
       that Black did not support his assertion that a counselor at the Au-
       gusta State Medical Prison instructed him that he could not ﬁle a
       grievance until he returned to his assigned prison. The Appellees
       claim that, even considering that these reasons may establish good
       cause, Black does not support them with any evidence. Thus, the
       district court properly dismissed his complaint.
              Based on the record, we conclude that the district court did
       not err in dismissing Black’s complaint for failure to exhaust his ad-
       ministrative remedies. Black has the burden to demonstrate that
       the administrative remedies were unavailable, and he has failed to
       meet his burden. In Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44, 136 S. Ct.
       1850, 1859-60 (2016), the Supreme Court recognized three
USCA11 Case: 22-10826     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024    Page: 7 of 8

       22-10826               Opinion of the Court                        7

       situations in which administrative remedies are “unavailable:” (1)
       the administrative procedure operates as a “dead end” with oﬃcers
       “unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief;” (2) the ad-
       ministrative scheme is “so opaque that it is incapable of use;” and
       (3) “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage
       of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation,
       and intimidation.” Id.
               Although Black claims that he was too sick and in too much
       pain to ﬁle a grievance form, the district court noted that, in his
       deposition, Black admitted to walking to the medical unit on three
       diﬀerent occasions, only one during which he obtained a sick call
       form. The district court concluded that Black’s physical condition
       did not render him incapable of timely ﬁling a grievance, and Black
       presents nothing to indicate that this ﬁnding is clearly erroneous.
       Further, the district court found that a grievance procedure was
       available to Black at the State Medical Prison as well. Even though
       Black says that a counselor instructed him he could not ﬁle a griev-
       ance there, Black does not specify which counselor provided him
       this information, or when he requested a grievance form while he
       was in the hospital. Black stated in his deposition that he was se-
       dated while he was in the hospital, but he did not provide medical
       records in support to show that he lacked the mental faculties to
       pursue a grievance. As the district court found, Black cannot meet
       his burden to show that the prison oﬃcials’ rejection of his griev-
       ance was arbitrary or capricious or intended to prevent him from
       exercising his right of access to the courts. Moreover, Black cannot
USCA11 Case: 22-10826     Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2024    Page: 8 of 8

       8                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10826

       meet his burden to show good cause for his failure to timely ﬁle his
       grievance.
              Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we af-
       ﬁrm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the
       Appellees and dismissing Black’s complaint without prejudice for
       failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
             AFFIRMED.