380 F.3d 989 | 6th Cir. | 2004
Before: GILMAN and COOK, Circuit Judges; CLELAND, C ORY P URIFOY ; S HANNON
(cid:45) District Judge. [*] (cid:45) Q UINN ; T RACY S MITH , (cid:45) Plaintiffs-Appellants _________________ (cid:45) (03-5389), (cid:45) COUNSEL (cid:45) v. (cid:45) ARGUED: C. Michael Robbins, ROBBINS & THOMAS, (cid:45) Memphis, Tennessee, Sarah F. Kaas, CANNON & (cid:45) C ORRECT IONS C ORPORATION DUNPHY, Brookfield, Wisconsin, for Appellants. James I. (cid:45) OF A MERICA ; P ATRICK Pentecost, PENTECOST, GLENN & RUDD, Jackson, (cid:45) Tennessee, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: C. Michael Robbins, W HALEN , Warden; S TEVEN (cid:45) ROBBINS & THOMAS, Memphis, Tennessee, Sarah F. D OTSON ; M IKE T WEETY ; J IM (cid:45) C OOKSEY ; T ONYA B OYD ; (cid:45) P RISON R EALTY T RUST , I NC ., (cid:45) Appellees. This case concerns the efforts of the plaintiffs to utilize WCF’s grievance procedure. The grievance procedure is _________________ summarized in this section, while the plaintiffs’ claims are OPINION discussed under the individual subheadings in Part II.C. _________________ below. RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. The 15 plaintiffs WCF’s grievance procedure in effect during August of in these three consolidated cases are prisoners who were 1998 was outlined in an inmate handbook dated July 6, 1998, convicted by Wisconsin state courts and held, at all relevant which states in relevant part as follows: times, at the Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF) located Each inmate at Whiteville Correctional Facility has the in Whiteville, Tennessee. WCF is operated by the right to utilize the grievance procedure without fear of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a private entity.
reprisal. The grievance procedure provides a forum in The plaintiffs allege that they were severely beaten and which inmates may formally raise their concerns over subjected to racial epithets by members of WCF’s Special incidents or conditions which personally affect them and Operations Response Team (SORT) in August of 1998, in allows these complaints to be considered and addressed violation of their rights under both federal and state law.
at an institutional level. A magistrate judge decided these cases with the parties’ Informal resolution of grievances is encouraged. This consent. The judge dismissed the claims of all 15 of the process is initiated prior to the formal logging of a named plaintiffs, reasoning that they had not exhausted their grievance in which the inmate agrees to allow a staff available administrative remedies before filing suit as member to attempt to resolve his complaint. required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment as
Prior to filing a grievance, you should attempt to obtain to plaintiffs Allen, Harris, Kyles, Lemons, Mata, McGee, an answer or solution to your grievance through a Miller, Paul, Purifoy, Quinn, and Smith, REVERSE the member of the unit team or you may also contact the judgment as to plaintiffs Boyd, Everette, Nemchek, and grievance chairperson for assistance. The grievance Nieves, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent office is located in the F wing. with this opinion. Grievance forms are available from any unit team member or in the library. Grievances may be deposited in the locked mail box located in front of the inmate dining room. The mail box is emptied daily, Monday through Friday. Emergency grievances should be
Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 5 6 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. forwarded to the grievance chairperson or shift B. Procedural background supervisor (whenever the chairperson is not available) for
The plaintiffs originally brought these suits in the Middle immediate attention. If the matter is deemed a non- District of Tennessee, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. emergency, then it will be processed through normal §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the Eighth and Fourteenth procedures.
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and All grievances must be filed within seven (7) days of the Tennessee state law. All three cases were eventually occurrence or most recent in a series of occurrences transferred to the Western District of Tennessee. The parties giving rise to the grievance. consented to having the cases heard by a magistrate judge,
who subsequently granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss The district court explained the operation of the grievance all of the claims under review based upon the plaintiffs’ system as follows: alleged failure to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. In order to initiate the grievance procedure, an inmate must complete a grievance form identified as Form 14-
II. ANALYSIS
5A and place it in the Grievance Mail Box or forward it to the Facility Grievance Officer. Upon receipt of the A. Standard of review grievance, the Facility Grievance Officer assigns a We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the number to the case and maintains a permanent grievance Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. log. That individual shall, within fifteen (15) days of § 1997e. Curry v. Scott , 249 F.3d 493, 503 (6th Cir. 2001). receipt of the grievance, conduct an investigation into the The same standard of review applies to the dismissal of a issue raised in the grievance and render a written prisoner’s civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust decision, which is set forth in the “Report and Decision” administrative remedies. McGore v. Wrigglesworth , 114 F.3d portion of the grievance form. A copy of the decision is 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). forwarded to the inmate. In the event an inmate is not satisfied with the decision of the Facility Grievance
B. Does the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement apply Officer, he may, within five (5) days of his receipt of the to prisoners who bring suit against correctional decision, appeal to the warden or his designee by institutions run by private entities? completing the Request for Warden Review portion of the grievance form and submitting it to the warden. . . .
The PLRA states in relevant part: “No action shall be The warden’s written decision is to be rendered within brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 fifteen (15) days of his receipt of the appeal. A copy of of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined the grievance form will then be returned to the Facility in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such Grievance Officer, who will forward a copy to the administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” inmate. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In the present case, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for failure to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a). The
Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 7 8 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. plaintiffs, however, contend that they were not required to private correctional facilities lacks merit.”). As the Tenth exhaust WCF’s grievance procedure before filing suit because Circuit explained in Ross , “[a] grievance system entirely under the control of a private[,]
[t]he purpose of this exhaustion requirement is to reduce for profit corporation engaged in [the] housing of state the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits. prisoners with no oversight by any agency of the state or Porter v. Nussle , 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 federal government is not an available administrative remedy L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). It is designed to achieve this purpose as that term is used in the PLRA.”
by 1) allowing prison officials an opportunity to satisfy This court has no published opinion holding that the the inmate’s complaint, thus potentially obviating the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to prisoners held in need for litigation; 2) filtering out some frivolous claims; privately operated correctional facilities. In one unpublished and 3) creating an administrative record that facilitates opinion, however, this court affirmed the dismissal of a review of cases that are ultimately brought to court. Id. prisoner’s suit against CCA because the prisoner had failed at 525. “to set forth any allegations that [he] submitted his complaints 365 F.3d at 1184. to the prison’s formal grievance process and that any grievances were appealed to the highest authority.” Butler v.
We are persuaded that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement Gardner , No. 00-4524, 2001 WL 1299000, at *1 (6th Cir. applies to prisoners held in private facilities. This conclusion Aug. 9, 2001); see also Robinson v. Corrections Corp. of is consistent with the language of the statute and the holdings America , No. 99-5741, 2001 WL 857204, at *2 (6th Cir. June of this and all other courts that have considered the issue. Our 20, 2001) (unpublished) (applying a separate provision of the ruling is also consistent with the purpose of the exhaustion PLRA in a prisoner’s suit against CCA); Treat v. Corrections requirement, which applies with equal force whether the Corp. of America , No. 00-6000, 2001 WL 856981, at *1 (6th prisoner is held in a prison run by a governmental entity or Cir. June 18, 2001) (unpublished) (stating that “[t]he PLRA one operated by a private corporation. The remaining issue applies to privately-operated prisons” and affirming the in the present cases, then, is whether the plaintiffs exhausted dismissal of the prisoner’s suit as frivolous). their administrative remedies before filing these lawsuits. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have likewise concluded that C. Did the plaintiffs exhaust their administrative the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to suits against remedies before filing suit in federal court? privately operated prisons. Ross v. County of Bernalillo , 365 F.3d 1181, 1184 (10th Cir. 2004) (“This requirement
This court has held that, in order to satisfy the PLRA’s applies fully when the plaintiff is a federal or state inmate exhaustion requirement, “a prisoner must plead his claims held in a privately operated facility.”); Murphy v. Jones , No. with specificity and show that they have been exhausted by 01-35336, 2001 WL 1450636, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2001) attaching a copy of the applicable administrative dispositions (unpublished) (“Because the Prison Litigation Reform Act to the complaint or, in the absence of written documentation, (‘PLRA’) states that a prisoner ‘confined in any jail, prison, describ[ing] with specificity the administrative proceeding or other correctional facility’ cannot bring an action about and its outcome.” Knuckles El v. Toombs , 215 F.3d 640, 642 prison conditions without exhausting administrative remedies, appellants’ contention that the PLRA is inapplicable to Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 9 10 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389
Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. (6th Cir. 2000). The court in Knuckles El explained that the complaint of the events of the evening of August 11, policy behind the heightened pleading standard is that 1998. Jones provided a grievance form to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff completed the form and attached a letter to it, [d]istrict courts should not have to hold time-consuming addressed to the warden of WCF, Patrick Whalen. evidentiary hearings in order simply to determine Within a day or so of his receipt of the form, plaintiff whether it should reach the merits or decline under the placed it with the letter in the hand of Senior Corrections mandatory language of § 1997e (“No action shall be Officer Roosevelt Jones with the request that it be brought . . . .”). In the absence of particularized delivered to the appropriate officers of the facility. averments concerning exhaustion showing the nature of Senior Jones thereafter personally delivered this the administrative proceeding and its outcome, the action grievance submitted by plaintiff to Ms. Diane Currie, the must be dismissed under § 1997e.
Grievance Chairperson at WCF at the time. Plaintiff has not received any response either to his letter to the
Id. A dismissal under § 1997e should be without prejudice. warden or to the grievance he submitted. Id. (holding that “the district court properly dismissed the entire complaint without prejudice”); Brown v. Toombs , 139 Another allegation in Boyd’s complaint, which is stated F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998) (“Because in the present case verbatim in the complaints of the other plaintiffs, is that there is no indication that the requirements of the statute have been complied with, the case should be dismissed without [i]n August 1998 and the months following, Ms. Currie prejudice, and the activity that the new statute contemplates [the Grievance Chairperson at WCF] failed to accurately should now occur—state adjudication of the claims.”). record or log the actual grievances received in her office
from inmates at WCF. A number of these grievances In order to determine whether the plaintiffs in the present concerned complaints about excessive force being used cases have satisfied this pleading requirement, we now turn
by SORT teams against inmates. Further, Ms. Currie’s to the relevant allegations contained in the amended office was entered without authority on occasions, and complaints as to each plaintiff, along with the supporting she later found that grievances had been removed. Ms. documentation. This individualized analysis follows. Currie notified the Chief of Security at WCF at the time, Jim Cooksey, of these matters. Chief Cooksey took no 1. Louis Boyd action whatsoever to investigate this discrepancy or to ensure that it would not happen again.
Louis Boyd alleged that in August of 1998 he was assaulted and subjected to racial epithets by members of SORT. The Chief of Security Cooksey at various times, during the other plaintiffs all made substantially similar allegations. August 1998 incidents at WCF concerning SORT team Boyd further alleged that, within a few days after being excessive force and thereafter, affirmatively acted to attacked, destroy evidence developed in the process of an “in house” investigation of the complaints about the SORT
he obtained the assistance of Senior Correction Officer teams, including the secreting of photographic evidence Roosevelt Jones. Plaintiff requested Senior Jones to of an inmate, who showed signs of physical abuse, in his provide him with a grievance form so that he could make office; and the removal of inmate grievance forms Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 11 12 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. complaining of SORT team assaults from Diane Currie’s informal procedure for resolving complaints without the need office. to file a formal grievance. The district court in Jorss noted
that “Plaintiff was not foreclosed from proceeding with the The district court concluded that Boyd had “failed to bear prison appeal process and exhausting available administrative his burden of showing he exhausted his administrative remedies because he did not receive a response to his remedies” because he did not attach a copy of his grievance informal appeal.” Id. at *2. Boyd, in contrast, was required to the complaint, and that he did not make “any allegation that to wait for a grievance officer to make a decision regarding he ever attempted to inquire into the status of the grievance he his formal grievance before he could appeal to the warden. filed or that he utilized the appeals process.” Regarding Boyd’s failure to attach any documentation, a prisoner- We conclude that the two cases relied upon by the district plaintiff may bear his pleading burden either “by attaching a court have little persuasive value as applied to Boyd’s copy of the applicable administrative dispositions to the situation. In contrast to Nunez and Jorss , moreover, several complaint or, in the absence of written documentation, circuits have held that the exhaustion requirement is satisfied describ[ing] with specificity the administrative proceeding where prison officials fail to timely respond to an inmate’s and its outcome.” Knuckles El , 215 F.3d at 642. The lack of written grievance. See Jernigan v. Stuchell , 304 F.3d 1030, documentation is thus not fatal to Boyd’s claim that he has 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e agree that the failure to respond exhausted his administrative remedies. to a grievance within the time limits contained in the
grievance policy renders an administrative remedy As for Boyd’s failure to follow up on his submitted unavailable[.]”); Lewis v. Washington , 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th grievance, the district court relied on Nunez v. Goord , 172 F. Cir. 2002) (“We join the Eighth and Fifth circuits on this Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In Nunez , the court cited the issue because we refuse to interpret the PLRA ‘so narrowly as plaintiff’s failure to follow up on a complaint letter written to
to . . . permit [prison officials] to exploit the exhaustion the prison superintendent as one reason supporting its requirement through indefinite delay in responding to conclusion that the plaintiff had not exhausted his grievances.’ ”); Foulk v. Charrier , 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. administrative remedies. Id. at 429. Nunez itself, however, 2001) (“[O]nce [the prison] failed to respond to [the cites no authority for the proposition that a plaintiff is prisoner’s written grievance], no further administrative obligated to follow up on a submitted complaint in order to proceedings were ‘available’ to him.”); Powe v. Ennis , 177 exhaust administrative remedies, and we have found no other F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (“A prisoner’s case that has adopted such a rule. administrative remedies are deemed exhausted when a valid
grievance has been filed and the state’s time for responding The district court also cited Jorss v. Vanknocker , No. C97- thereto has expired.”). Following the lead of the four other 3719CRB (PR), 2001 WL 823771, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 19, circuits that have considered this issue, we conclude that 2001) (unpublished), for the proposition that the “failure to administrative remedies are exhausted when prison officials receive [a] response to [a] grievance [is] no excuse for not fail to timely respond to a properly filed grievance. completing the process.” But in Jorss , unlike the present case, the prisoner received no response to his grievance In the present case, Boyd specifically alleged that (1) he submitted pursuant to the prison’s preliminary, informal submitted a grievance form by giving it to a corrections grievance procedure—the approximate equivalent of WCF’s officer, (2) the grievance covered “the events of the evening Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 13 14 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389
Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. of August 11, 1998,” (3) the grievance was delivered to the filed CCA grievances regarding the incidents . . . among Grievance Chairperson, who is designated in the grievance other matters. CCA never held a hearing nor adequately procedure as the appropriate recipient of grievances, and responded and CCA’s response was consistent with what (4) prison officials totally failed to respond to the grievance. the plaintiffs believe was the defendants’ intentional These detailed allegations satisfied Boyd’s burden to and/or deliberately indifferent CCA practice and de facto “describe with specificity the administrative proceeding and policy of attempting to conceal CCA’s unlawful conduct its outcome,” Knuckles El , 215 F.3d at 642, and establish as alleged herein, including, but not limited to, the fact that Boyd has exhausted his administrative remedies. We the Internal Affairs Office was pilfered and grievances therefore reverse the district court’s judgment as to Boyd’s pertaining to the use of force by SORT members claims and remand his case for further proceedings. removed and/or destroyed by [Chief of Security Jim]
Cooksey, among others. 2. Sammie Everette, Paul Nemchek, and Luis Nieves (Emphasis in original.) Allen attached a copy of his grievance form to the complaint. This document is illegible Sammie Everette alleged that within approximately four in the Joint Appendix and, consequently, we have no way to days of the assault, “he requested an officer to provide him determine whether the form is signed by Allen or stamped with a grievance form. Plaintiff wrote on . . . his grievance to “Received” by WCF. The district court’s opinion, however, the effect that he had been assaulted by the officers; that he states that the document “showed no signs of having been had been denied medical attention; and that he desired to submitted.” contact Wisconsin officials. Plaintiff never received any response to this grievance.” Although Everette’s allegations Even assuming that Allen’s document was signed and lack the detail of Boyd’s, he still stated that he submitted a stamped, the allegations of the complaint fail to satisfy grievance that addressed the incident in question and that he the requirement that a prisoner-plaintiff “describe with received no response. Everette’s case is a close one under the specificity the administrative proceeding and its outcome.” Knuckles El standard, but we believe that he has adequately Knuckles El , 215 F.3d at 642. Allen asserts that “CCA never alleged the essential facts necessary to avoid a motion to held a hearing nor adequately responded . . . .” But WCF’s dismiss. We therefore reverse and remand his claims for grievance procedures give prisoners no right to a hearing, and further proceedings. For the same reason, we reverse and the allegation that CCA did not “adequately respond” does remand the claims of Paul Nemchek and Luis Nieves. Like not indicate whether CCA failed to respond at all, or whether Everette, Nemchek and Nieves both made similar allegations CCA did in fact investigate the matter and that Allen was that they filed a grievance relating to the incident in question simply unhappy with the result. The district court was but that CCA failed to respond. therefore correct in dismissing his claims without prejudice.
3. Murray Allen 4. Howard R. Harris Murray Allen alleged that, after he was assaulted by Howard R. Harris alleged that he did “not recall filing a
members of SORT, he grievance pursuant to the informal grievance policy because he feared for his safety but submits that CCA would not have Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 15 16 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. responded to any grievance . . . .” The district court procedures, the PLRA requires the plaintiffs to exhaust concluded that Harris’s “conclusory allegations of fear with them.”). respect to filing a grievance are not sufficient to excuse his
In sum, Harris’s nonspecific allegations of fear and his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.” subjective feeling of futility do not excuse his failure to In Larkin v. Galloway , 266 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2001), the exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court was prisoner-plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he had not used therefore correct in dismissing Harris’s claims without the prison grievance system before filing suit because he was prejudice. “afraid to complain. I threw the grievance procedure away 5. Joshua Kyles because I did not want to provoke this administration.” Id. at 720. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
Joshua Kyles alleged that he “requested grievance forms complaint without discussing the effect of the prisoner’s and filed grievances pursuant to the informal grievance alleged fear on his obligation to file a grievance. Id. at 723- procedure . . . . CCA did not respond adequately and/or 24. Although Larkin supports the decision below, the destroyed the grievance(s) . . . .” Kyles attached copies of his Seventh Circuit did not squarely address the issue of whether grievance forms to his complaint. These grievance forms, fear of retaliation will excuse the failure to exhaust. We need however, do not address the alleged assault by members of not address the issue either, because even assuming that a fear SORT. One form complains about being housed in a cell of retaliation might excuse a prisoner’s duty to exhaust, with an inmate who smoked, and the others complain about Harris has alleged no facts in support of his conclusion that being held in a high security unit. The district court therefore “he feared for his safety . . . .” Because a prisoner-plaintiff correctly concluded that Kyles “clearly failed to exhaust the must “describe with specificity the administrative proceeding claim for which he now seeks relief.” and its outcome[,]” Knuckles El , 215 F.3d at 642, a prisoner who contends that he failed to exhaust out of fear should also
6. Larry B. Lemons have to “describe with specificity” the factual basis for his fear.
Larry Lemons alleged that he “filed at least three CCA grievances, including, but not limited to, the grievances As for Harris’s allegation that “CCA would not have attached hereto . . . . However, CCA failed to ever adequately responded to any grievance[,]” the district court properly respond and/or destroyed grievances.” Lemons attached three observed that “[a]ny subjective belief on [his] part as to what grievance forms to his complaint. But as the district court the outcome might have been had [he] done so hardly excuses noted, the first form is not signed and, unlike the other two, [his] failure to exhaust.” See Thomas v. Woolum , 337 F.3d was not stamped “Received” by WCF. On the third form, 720, 733 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Exhaustion . . . requires a plaintiff moreover, Lemons checked the box indicating that he did not to bring a grievance to the state before coming to federal court want to appeal from the adverse decision of the grievance even when the state has made clear that it will not grant the officer. The strongest evidence that Lemons exhausted his relief requested.”); Edwards v. Alabama Dep’t of Corrs ., 81 administrative remedies is provided by the second form, F. Supp. 2d 1242, 1256-57 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (“Regardless of which is signed by Lemons, stamped “Received,” and their chances of success using the defendants’ grievance includes comments by the grievance officer. Lemons, Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 17 18 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. moreover, checked the box indicating that he wanted to 9. Randall Miller appeal from the adverse decision of the grievance officer.
Randall Miller alleged that he “filed CCA grievances The district court concluded, however, that Lemons failed to pursuant to its informal grievance procedure . . . . These demonstrate exhaustion because “there is nothing to indicate grievances were not adequately responded to by CCA.” that he made any effort to determine the status of his appeal Miller attached four documents to his complaint. The first is on the other.” For the reasons discussed above in connection a typed letter addressed to “Complaint/Grievance with Louis Boyd’s grievance, the great weight of authority is Investigator,” which addresses the alleged assault by against using the plaintiff’s failure to follow up on a properly members of SORT. This letter is not stamped “Received” by lodged grievance as a factor that militates against a finding of WCF. The district court therefore correctly concluded that exhaustion.
this document is insufficient to demonstrate that Miller The more significant problem with Lemons’s complaint is actually submitted the grievance to WCF officials. his allegation that “CCA failed to ever adequately respond Also attached to the complaint is another letter that . . . .” As previously discussed with regard to Murray Allen’s complains about Miller’s confinement in a high security unit. complaint, this ambiguous allegation does not adequately This letter is not stamped and does not address the alleged describe “the administrative proceeding and its outcome” as assault. The third document is a letter to Warden Patrick required by Knuckles El . The district court was therefore Whalen complaining about Miller’s continued confinement in correct in dismissing Lemons’s claims without prejudice.
the high security unit. This letter also is not stamped and 7. Jesus Villanueva Mata does not address the assault. The fourth document attached to the complaint is a grievance form in which Miller Jesus Villanueva Mata alleged that he “does not recall but complains that he has not received mail that was sent to him may have filed grievances pursuant to the informal policy, but from outside the prison. Because none of these documents submits that CCA would not have adequately responded to address the alleged assault, the district court correctly his grievances and/or destroyed the grievances . . . .” For the concluded that Miller had failed to exhaust his administrative reasons discussed above in connection with Howard R. remedies with respect to that claim. Harris’s grievances, the district court correctly concluded that this noncommital statement does not demonstrate that Mata 10. Jerome Paul exhausted his administrative remedies.
Jerome Paul conceded in his complaint that he “did not file 8. Patrick U. McGee a CCA grievance because he did not know about the existence of a legitimate grievance procedure.” But as the district court Patrick McGee similarly stated that he “does not recall observed, the grievance policy is set forth in the inmate filing a CCA grievance because he believed that CCA would handbook that “is provided to inmates as part of the prison not respond adequately . . . .” As with Mata’s claim, the orientation process.” Paul, moreover, “does not allege that he district court was correct in deciding that McGee had failed to
never received a handbook or that prison officials somehow exhaust his administrative remedies. otherwise denied him access to an inmate handbook or to other information relative to the grievance procedure.” The
Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 19 20 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. district court therefore correctly concluded that Paul failed to 13. Tracy Smith exhaust his administrative remedies.
Tracy Smith alleged the following in his complaint: “After 11. Cory Purifoy the incident described above, upon information and belief, Mr. Smith did file a CCA grievance but CCA did not Cory Purifoy alleged that he “did file grievances pursuant adequately respond to any such grievance and/or destroyed to the existing informal grievance procedure . . . . CCA did the grievance.” For the reasons discussed above in not adequately respond . . . .” Purifoy attached copies of two connection with several of the named plaintiffs, this vague grievance forms to the complaint. The first grievance assertion does not satisfy the requirement of specific addresses the use of force by the members of SORT, but the pleadings as set forth in Knuckles El . The district court was form was not stamped “Received” and Purifoy did not attach therefore correct in concluding that Smith had failed to the second page of the form that would include the grievance exhaust his administrative remedies. officer’s decision and the boxes for Purifoy to indicate whether he wanted to appeal. Similar to the allegation by III. CONCLUSION Murray Allen, moreover, the allegation by Purifoy that CCA
For all of the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the did not “adequately respond” does not sufficiently describe district court’s judgment as to plaintiffs Allen, Harris, Kyles, “the administrative proceeding and its outcome” as required Lemons, Mata, McGee, Miller, Paul, Purifoy, Quinn, and by Knuckles El . The district court was therefore correct in Smith, REVERSE the judgment as to plaintiffs Boyd, dismissing his claims without prejudice.
Everette, Nemchek, and Nieves, and REMAND for further In the second grievance form, Purifoy requested that he be proceedings consistent with this opinion. returned to the general population and have access to institutional programs. The second form does not address the alleged assault and therefore does not demonstrate that Purifoy exhausted his administrative remedies on the issue in question.
12. Shannon Quinn Shannon Quinn conceded in his complaint that he “did not
file a grievance pursuant to CCA’s informal grievance procedure believing that CCA did not intend to adequately respond . . . .” For the same reasons discussed in regard to Howard R. Harris’s similar excuse, Quinn’s allegation is insufficient to satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. The district court’s conclusion that Quinn failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is therefore correct.
NOTES
[*] (cid:45) a/k/a P RISON R EALTY The Honorable Robert H. Cleland, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 1 Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Boyd et al. v. Corrections 3 4 Boyd et al. v. Corrections Nos. 03-5227/5228/5389 Corp. of Am. et al. Corp. of Am. et al. Kaas, Mark L. Thomsen, CANNON & DUNPHY, I. BACKGROUND Brookfield, Wisconsin, for Appellants. Tom Anderson, A. Factual background ANDERSON LAW FIRM, Jackson, Tennessee, for