Roca-Moreno III v. Desouza, 1:19-cv-23688

Background

Plaintiff Alfredo Roca-Moreno III, a Florida state prisoner, alleges that on June 14, 2017 two correctional officers tasered him multiple times while he was shackled to a hospital bed, causing permanent seizures and cognitive/psychological injuries.
Plaintiff alleges defendants falsified incident reports; the Inspector General’s review found use of force "in compliance with procedure" but noted reporting discrepancies and missing video.
Plaintiff did not file a recorded informal grievance within the 20-day administrative window; he alleges he submitted an undocumented grievance on October 16, 2018 and a direct grievance to the Secretary that was returned for procedural defects.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Plaintiff argued his grievance was timely under a "discovery" theory because he learned relevant facts on October 2, 2018 after receiving the IG report and only then could pursue the grievance.
The Magistrate Judge found plaintiff failed to timely and properly exhaust administrative remedies (no out‑of‑time leave requested; undocumented/untimely grievance), rejected plaintiff's delayed‑discovery timing for the grievance, and recommended dismissal without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA	Roca-Moreno contends he exhausted by filing an October 16, 2018 grievance (after discovery) and by pursuing administrative avenues	Defendants contend no proper/ timely informal grievance was filed, no out‑of‑time permission sought, and the Secretary grievance was defective/returned	Court: No. Defendants met burden; plaintiff failed to properly and timely exhaust administrative remedies under § 1997e(a)
Whether the 20‑day administrative filing period starts upon "discovery"	Plaintiff: the 20‑day period begins when he discovered the IG report and facts on Oct 2, 2018	Defendants: time runs from the incident date; Florida Admin. Code requires filing within 20 days of the incident	Court: Rejected plaintiff's novel discovery start-date; Fla. Admin. Code controls; discovery argument insufficient to make grievance timely
Whether the delayed‑discovery doctrine salvages timeliness	Plaintiff: he experienced flashbacks and only cohered the claim after receiving documents	Defendants: records show earlier awareness or means of inquiry; plaintiff should have known sooner	Court: Applying delayed‑discovery, plaintiff still should have known earlier; the doctrine does not make the Oct 2018 filing timely
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice	Plaintiff implicitly seeks preservation of claims	Defendants request dismissal with prejudice	Court: Dismissal without prejudice because plaintiff remains in custody and may seek leave to file an out‑of‑time grievance under Fla. Admin. Code § 33‑103.011(2)

Key Cases Cited

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing federal prisoner suits)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion promotes administrative resolution and creates useful record)
Dimanche v. Brown, 783 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2015) (failure‑to‑exhaust defense is an abatement issue; two‑step analysis for exhaustion disputes)
Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008) (procedures for resolving factual disputes on exhaustion)
Harper v. Jenkin, 179 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 1999) (prisoner who fails to seek leave to file out‑of‑time grievance has not exhausted)
Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (discussing when dismissal with prejudice may be appropriate for failure to exhaust)
Berry v. Kerik, 366 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2004) (examples of circumstances warranting dismissal with prejudice)
Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2000) (Florida’s delayed‑discovery doctrine for accrual of causes of action)