Boudreaux v. Lafourche Parish, 2:21-cv-01830

Plaintiff Daniel J. Boudreaux, a pretrial detainee, sued Lafourche Parish, the parish medical department, Sheriff Craig Webre, the State of Louisiana, and CorrectHealth under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of care for gunshot injuries and related complaints about jail medical treatment.
Defendants CorrectHealth Lafourche, LLC and Lafourche Parish moved to dismiss; only the exhaustion issue was addressed as dispositive.
On the court complaint form Boudreaux acknowledged a grievance procedure exists, attached a Step 1 grievance (answered: scheduled for sick call), and admitted he did not complete all grievance steps or appeals, explaining that grievances are answered by the party complained of.
Defendants invoked the PLRA exhaustion requirement as an affirmative defense and relied on Boudreaux’s form admissions in their motions to dismiss.
The magistrate judge concluded Boudreaux did not pursue Steps 2 and 3, rejected his futility argument (no showing of a dead-end or that officials thwarted the process), and recommended granting the unopposed motions to dismiss.
Recommendation: dismiss claims against Lafourche Parish, the parish medical department, and CorrectHealth without prejudice (but with prejudice for proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); remaining defendants (Webre and the State) not addressed here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boudreaux exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA	He filed a Step 1 grievance and claims the process is ineffective because grievances are answered by the party complained of	Plaintiff admitted he did not complete all grievance steps or appeals	Court held he failed to exhaust because he stopped at Step 1; dismissal appropriate
Whether admissions on a court complaint form can support a dismissal for failure to exhaust	Implied: inmates need not plead exhaustion; form answers should not be treated as dispositive	Defendants may rely on plaintiff’s admissions on the form in their affirmative-defense motion	Court permitted reliance on those admissions here and found them sufficiently definitive
Whether futility/unavailability excused exhaustion	Grievance process is ineffective/biased and thus futile	Futility is not a judicially created exception; plaintiff did not show a dead-end or that officials thwarted the process; he was told he would be scheduled for sick call	Court rejected futility/unavailability; Ross v. Blake exceptions not shown
Proper disposition for failure to exhaust by an IFP inmate	(Implicit) plaintiff seeks adjudication on merits	Defendants seek dismissal for failure to exhaust	Recommended dismissal without prejudice, but with prejudice for IFP purposes under § 1915

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion requirement is mandatory and applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (inmate must exhaust available administrative remedies regardless of the forms of relief those remedies provide)
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (administrative remedies must be "available" — three narrow situations render remedies unavailable)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; prisoners need not plead exhaustion in their complaints)
Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir.) (district courts have no discretion to waive PLRA exhaustion)
Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir.) (no judicially created futility exceptions to PLRA exhaustion)
Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325 (5th Cir.) (dismissal on failure to exhaust is appropriate only if complaint itself makes clear remedies were not exhausted)
Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir.) (definition of "exhaust" requires taking complete advantage of remedies)
Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (administrative remedies are not exhausted unless plaintiff pursues all steps contemplated)