Bingham v. Thomas, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18293

Bingham, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate medical indifference and related claims at Autry State Prison.
The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to exhaust and for frivolousness.
Bingham asserted multiple claims: delayed dental treatment, denial of aspirin, denial of a prison rule book, inadequate grievance procedures, and guards allowing inmate theft of property.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded the dental-treatment exhaustion issue, but affirmed dismissal of the other claims as frivolous or non-justiciable.
The court held that prison grievance procedures do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest, and that denial of a rule book does not implicate due process.
The court emphasized that pro se pleadings are liberally construed and that exhaustion is an affirmative defense, to be raised in responsive pleading if not apparent on the face of the complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bingham exhausted administrative remedies for dental treatment	Bingham exhausted or substantially complied with remedies.	Exhaustion not shown on face of complaint; district court was correct to dismiss.	Remanded for exhaustion determination; not resolved on the face of the complaint.
Whether denial of dental treatment states an Eighth Amendment claim	Deliberate indifference to serious dental need.	Allegations insufficient to show a serious medical need or deliberate indifference.	No reversible error found on other claims; dental claim remanded; remaining claims affirmed.
Whether denial of aspirin constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation	Denial of prescribed pain relief constitutes deliberate indifference.	Plaintiff failed to plead a medical condition or injury; claim frivolous.	Affirmed dismissal of this claim as frivolous.
Whether denial of a prison rule book and access to grievance procedures violates due process or constitutional rights	Denial infringes due process and access to grievance procedures.	No constitutionally protected liberty interest in access to grievance procedures or a rule book.	Dismissal affirmed; no due process or liberty-interest violation found.
Whether guards' conduct allowing theft of property states a cognizable claim	Inmates were allowed to steal his property by guard action or inaction.	Allegations are conclusory and lack specifics.	Dismissal affirmed as frivolous for lack of detail.

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense not required to be pled in the complaint)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must allege facts plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion required for prison conditions actions)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs standard)
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir.2004) (subjective component of deliberate indifference)
Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir.2000) (objective serious medical need plus culpable response required)
Miller v. Tanner, 196 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.1999) (framework for screening frivolous complaints)
Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.1999) (no liberty interest in rule-book provision absent life, liberty, or property loss)
Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir.2005) (state-created procedural rights without guaranteed substantive outcomes not protected)
White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.1999) (pleadings are construed in the plaintiff's favor)