Click Back Button to Return to Publication
JOSEPH SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELBY COUNTY; A. C.GILLESS; JIM
ROUT, Defendants-Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
April 2, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE
COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS
REPRODUCED.
Joseph Smith, a Tennessee
prisoner currently incarcerated in the Shelby County Correctional Center
("SCCC") appeals a district court order and judgment dismissing [*190] his civil rights complaint filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court
pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this
panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P.
34(a).
Smith sues Shelby County, Shelby
County Sheriff A.C. Gilless, and Shelby County Mayor Jim Rout, alleging that he
was denied medication for high blood pressure, headaches, and a heart condition
while incarcerated at the Shelby County Jail. Smith alleges that he sent
approximately seven complaints to the "countys [sic] administration
office" and sent approximately five slips to the medical department. Smith
alleges that he received no response, and he now seeks monetary relief. The
district court dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a) because Smith had not exhausted his administrative remedies.
This timely appeal followed.
The
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners desiring to bring civil rights
claims to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing suit in
federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Brown
v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998). The prisoner bears the burden
of establishing exhaustion of administrative remedies. Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104.
To establish exhaustion,
the prisoner must allege that all available administrative remedies have been
exhausted and should attach documentation to the complaint indicating the
administrative disposition of any grievances that have been filed. Knuckles-El
v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640, 642 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1040, 148 L.
Ed. 2d 542, 121 S. Ct. 634 (2000); Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. The exhaustion
requirement applies even when the prisoner seeks monetary damages that may not
be available through the grievance system, as long as the prison system has an
administrative process that will review a prisoner's complaint. Booth v.
Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 121 S. Ct. 1819, 1825, 149 L. Ed. 2d 958 (2001);
Knuckles-El, 215 F.3d at 642; Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 879 (6th Cir.
1999). Before the district court adjudicates any claim set forth in a
prisoner's complaint, the court must determine whether the prisoner has
complied with the exhaustion requirement. Wyatt, 193 F.3d at 879; Brown, 139
F.3d at 1104. When a prisoner has filed a civil rights complaint in federal
court without first exhausting his administrative remedies, dismissal of the
complaint is appropriate. Freeman v.
Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir. 1999); Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104.
Upon review, we conclude that
the district court properly dismissed Smith's complaint for failure to follow
the mandatory exhaustion requirement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Freeman,
196 F.3d at 645; Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. Smith did not meet his burden of demonstrating that he
had exhausted his administrative remedies as to the claims raised in his
complaint prior to filing suit in federal court. See Freeman, 196 F.3d at 645; Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. He has
clearly not pleaded his claims with specificity showing that each claim has
been exhausted by attaching a copy of the applicable administrative
dispositions or describing with specificity both the proceeding and its
outcome. Knuckles-El, 215 F.3d
at 642. Although the district court's order does not expressly so state, we
note that the dismissal of Smith's complaint is without prejudice. See Wyatt,
193 F.3d at 879.
Finally, Smith offers exhibits in this court purporting to demonstrate that he exhausted his administrative remedies. However, these documents were not before the district court and are not part of the record reviewable by this court. See [*191] Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). If Smith has exhausted his administrative remedies, he can indeed refile his complaint on the grounds stated therein.
Accordingly, the district court's order and judgment is affirmed. Rule
34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.