Boyd v. Cullom
20-60327
| 5th Cir. | Apr 14, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Dean Boyd, a Mississippi prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserted a state-law tort claim against MDOC employees; the district court dismissed both claims on summary judgment.
- District court dismissed the § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust the MDOC Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) two-step grievance process before filing suit.
- Boyd conceded he did not complete the two-step ARP prior to filing; he later pursued additional grievances and a state-court petition for judicial review.
- The district court concluded those later actions did not satisfy the pre-filing exhaustion requirement and that the state-court filing attempted to circumvent institutional grievance procedures.
- The magistrate judge found Boyd failed to give the required notice of intent to sue under state law and failed to allege facts amounting to an Eighth Amendment violation; Boyd did not meaningfully challenge those alternative grounds.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and denied Boyd’s motion to reconsider the striking of his reply brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of § 1983 claim | Boyd contends his later grievances and state filing show exhaustion | Defendants contend Boyd failed to complete the two-step ARP before suing | Affirmed — Boyd conceded he did not pursue the two-step ARP before filing; not exhausted |
| Effect of later grievances/state judicial review | Later grievances and state petition completed exhaustion | ARP must be completed per institutional rules before suit; state action cannot substitute | Affirmed — post-filing grievances and state judicial review do not satisfy pre-filing exhaustion requirement |
| State-law tort claim (notice requirement) | Boyd argues merits of tort claim | Defendants argue Boyd failed to provide required notice of intent to sue | Affirmed — dismissal upheld for failure to provide the requisite notice |
| State-law tort claim (Eighth Amendment) | Boyd argues claim amounts to constitutional violation | Defendants argue pleadings do not allege Eighth Amendment violation | Affirmed — Boyd failed to allege facts amounting to an Eighth Amendment violation; he also abandoned other challenges by not briefing them |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for exhaustion on summary judgment)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion requires completing administrative review according to procedural rules)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion demands compliance with procedural rules)
- Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (belated grievances do not cure pre-filing failure to exhaust)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (arguments not briefed are waived)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigants must brief issues to preserve them)