Cornelius Corey v. Faye Daniels
626 F. App'x 414
4th Cir.2015Background
- Cornelius Maurice Corey, a pro se prisoner, appealed the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and its dismissal without prejudice of his amended claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The district court dismissed original complaint claims on the merits and dismissed amended claims for failure to exhaust under the PLRA.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether exhaustion was required and whether failure to exhaust was apparent on the face of the amended complaint.
- The amended complaint included a grievance and related documents; the record did not clearly show exhaustion failure from the face of the filing.
- The district court did not give Corey an opportunity to respond on the exhaustion issue before dismissing the amended claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended claims were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA | Corey’s filings (grievance and attachments) show exhaustion or at least do not plainly show failure to exhaust | District court asserted amended claims were unexhausted and dismissed them without further proceedings | Vacated dismissal of amended claims and remanded; exhaustion failure was not apparent on the face of the amended complaint and Corey was not given chance to respond |
| Whether failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that must appear in the complaint | Implicit: Corey not required to plead exhaustion | Defendants bear burden to prove failure to exhaust | Court reiterates that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense for defendants to establish |
| Whether a court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to exhaust without giving inmate a chance to respond | Corey: must be given opportunity to address exhaustion if dismissal is considered sua sponte | District court dismissed sua sponte without affording response | Court held district court should have provided an opportunity to respond when failure is not clear on complaint’s face |
| Whether any merits decision was made on remanded claims | Corey seeks adjudication on amended claims | District court had dismissed on exhaustion grounds only | Court declined to rule on merits and remanded for further proceedings on exhaustion and related issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Talbot v. Lucy Corr. Nursing Home, 118 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for exhaustion questions)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion must be proper and follow agency procedures)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion requirement applies to § 1983 actions by prisoners)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; inmate not required to plead exhaustion)
- Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717 (4th Cir. 2008) (defendant bears burden to show failure to exhaust)
- Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health Servs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2005) (court may dismiss sua sponte only if failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint and inmate is given opportunity to respond)