AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law
for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities


Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies

     Monthly Law Journal Article: Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies - Part One, 2011 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion of Remedies - Part Two
, 2011 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.

     An inmate missing toes on his right foot fell and was injured while going up stairs to his upper-tier cell. He sued correctional defendants and the trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). A federal appeals court found that the dismissal, entered on the trial’s court’s own motion, was improper. It was not clear from the face of the complaint that administrative remedies were not exhausted. In such cases, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense and plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate exhaustion in their complaint. A court cannot dismiss a complaint on that basis without first giving the plaintiff an opportunity to address the issue. Custis v. Davis, #15-7533, 851 F.3d 358  (4th Cir. 2017).  
     After prison staff members failed to respond to a prisoner’s grievance alleging excessive use of force against him, he filed a state court writ of habeas corpus regarding his attempt to exhaust the claim. He also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that administrative remedies were unavailable because of the failure to process his grievance. The state court granted habeas relief, finding that the grievance had been timely filed, and ordering the grievance to be processed. The federal trial court dismissed the excessive force lawsuit, finding that administrative remedies had not been exhausted at the time it was filed. A federal appeals court vacated, ordering further proceedings. It reasoned that the plaintiff prisoner had exhausted his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. “When prison officials fail to respond to a prisoner’s grievance within a reasonable time, the prisoner is deemed to have exhausted available administrative remedies” within the meaning of the PLRA. Andres v. Marshall, #15-56057, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 6990 (9th Cir.).

     An inmate claimed that correctional employees failed to prevent an assault on him by his cellmate that caused a broken ankle and also left the injury untreated for months. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the prisoner had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). A federal appeals court reversed, finding that the plaintiff had made a timely complaint to the facility’s complaint examiner and filed a second administrative complaint. Correspondence was then sent to him at the facility after he was transferred elsewhere to a mental health facility where he was forced to take psychotropic drugs. The trial court’s ruling ignored the fact that he had done the best he could under these circumstances Prisoners can’t be required to exhaust remedies that are unavailable to them, the court commented. Weiss v. Barribeau, #16-3039 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 6063 (7th Cir.).
     A federal appeals court reinstated a prisoner’s claim that he was beaten by prison officers while he was restrained in handcuffs and legs irons. There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers’ use of force resulted in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or suffering. The court upheld the dismissal of a claim against one officer for failure to intervene, however, as the prisoner had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies on that claim as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Manley v. Rowley, #15-15320, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 1590 (9th Cir.).
     A former jail detainee sued four county detention officers, claiming that they beat him without justification. A jury found one of the officer liable, awarding both $10,000 in compensatory damages and $4,000 in punitive damages. A federal appeals court held that the trial court did not err in concluding that he complied with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997(e)(a), exhaustion of remedies requirement, Further sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the officer was liable for excessive force. Since that was enough to support the damages awarded, the appeals court did not have to address the defendant officer's challenges to the jury's other findings of bystander liability or state law assault. Cowart v. Erwin, #15-10404, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 16736 (5th Cir.).
     After a corrections officer allegedly intentionally injured an inmate by twisting his arm "real hard" and said “since today is my last day, I wanted to leave you with a present,” the prisoner submitted a sick call request and filled out a form describing the incident and asking for an investigation. While he was assessed and received medication, no investigation followed, and his follow-up requests for a decision were ignored. Overturning a finding of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a federal appeals court found that the exhaustion of remedies provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was satisfied by the prisoner's attempt to avail himself of the prison's administrative processes and the prison's noncompliance with its own deadline. Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, #14-2994, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13650 (3rd Cir.).
     A prisoner sued two correctional officers for allegedly brutally beating him for talking back to a third officer. On the issue of whether the plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) prior to filing suit, a federal appeals court found that the prison's grievance procedures were not available to the plaintiff. This was because they were so confusing that they were, “practically speaking, incapable of use.” Williams v. Correction Officer Priatno, #14-4777, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12775 (2nd Cir.).
     As two guards undertook to move an inmate to a segregation unit, one of them allegedly assaulted him, pnnching him in the face. The prisoner sued that guard for excessive force and the second guard for failing to take protective action. A jury found the first guard liable, but the second raised as a defense the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. The prisoner argued that an internal investigation of the incident was a substitution for the grievance procedures. A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of the failure to protect claim on exhaustion of remedies grounds. It held that "special circumstances" could excuse failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements, especially when the prisoner mistakenly, but reasonably, believed that he sufficiently exhausted his remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this ruling. “The Fourth Circuit's unwritten 'special circumstances’ exception is inconsistent with the text and history of the PLRA.” The exhaustion of available administrative remedies is mandatory under the statute. However, under circumstances were an administrative remedy is officially on the books but not actually available, operating as a dead end, it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use. It is also not "available" if prison administrators thwart prisoners from using it by intimidation or misrepresentation. Further proceedings were required to determine whether the prisoner actually had an "available administrative remedy." Ross v. Blake, #15-339, 2016 U.S. Lexis 3614
     An Indiana inmate sued prison staff members for allegedly failing to protect him from assault by other inmates who threw feces at him on four occasions over a two-year period. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform (PLRA) by pursuing grievances. The prisoner claimed, however, that prison staff members had interfered with his filing of formal grievances. A federal appeals court found that summary judgment had been improper for three of the four incidents--in one case, prison staff had returned his grievance form unprocessed, and in two other instances, he asked his counselor and unit manager for a grievance form but they refused to do so, even though they were responsible for giving him such a form upon request. The plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies as to the remaining incident, however, since he had failed to resubmit his formal grievance form to correct the statement that he had accepted an informal resolution; Hill v. Snyder, #15-2607, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6206 (7th Cir.).
     A motorist convicted of aggravated DUI causing a death was rendered a quadriplegic in the accident. He was taken into custody while hospitalized for treatment of pressure wounds. Under the county sheriff's policy, he was shackled to his hospital bed by one hand and one foot. He was later sent to the county jail and then to a county hospital, where the shackling continued. He claimed that this interfered with doctors' instructions that he move every two hours to help his sores heal, and that his recovery was stunted. The jail's grievance procedure, described in a handbook he never received, required him to file a written grievance within 15 days, which he never did. He did, however, complain orally, and after he was discharged from the hospital and entered the jail's general population, he had other inmates file grievances for him, since he could not write. He appealed from the denial of one such grievance. A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of his lawsuit for excessive force and deliberate indifference for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. He had no remedies available to him while hospitalized and uninformed of the grievance procedures, and he did properly exhaust his administrative remedies when finally able to do so.
Hernandez v. Dart, #15-2493, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 3426 (7th Cir.).
     A prisoner claimed that he was severely beaten by a correctional officer and then placed in isolation and deprived of food after being treated for his injuries. He initiated a three step grievance process, but never received a response. He then submitted a notice of grievance form to the inspector of institutional services, but again received no response. He sent another communication about the status of his grievance, and again received no response. He then sued. A federal appeals court found that he was not required to proceed to the third stage of the grievance procedure after he received no reply at the first and second steps. The grievance procedure was silent about the need to proceed to the third step after a non-response to the second step. Troche v. Crabtree, #15-3258, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 3277, 2016 Fed. App. 49P (6th Cir.).
     A California inmate sued over alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies because the prisoner failed to comply with a procedural rule requiring him to name two physicians involved in his care, which he claimed was inadequate.. A federal appeals court found that the prisoner exhausted "such administrative remedies as are available" in a case where, despite failing to comply with a procedural rule, prison officials ignore the rule and decide a grievance on its merits, as they did here. The grievance gave prison officials full notice of the alleged deprivation and an ample opportunity to resolve it. Reyes v. Smith, #13-17119, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 433 (9th Cir.).
     A female prisoner who was pregnant when she arrived at a county jail claimed that the jail employees were deliberately indifferent in failing to take a proper medical history, failing to respond to several requests for medical assistance, and failing to react quickly enough when she went into labor. As a result, she further claimed, her child suffered serious birth defects. She was taken to a hospital where she gave birth and then returned to the jail where she was transferred to another facility after four days. The trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies at the jail. Even had she been informed upon her return to the jail from the hospital that he had only four days to file a grievance, that time period would have been an unreasonable deadline to impose on a woman right after she gave birth to a severely impaired child. White v. Bukowski, #14-3185, 800 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2015).
     An Illinois state inmate claimed that a prison's medical staff were deliberately indifferent to the results of 11 blood tests it administered over a period of five years, during which he progressed from pre-diabetic to diabetic, even failing to tell him, until the last test, that his blood glucose levels were dangerously high. A federal appeals court held that the allegations, if true, did constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The two-year statute of limitations would have tolled between the time he discovered that he was diabetic and when he filed suit, since he was then engaged in exhausting available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Nally v. Ghosh, #14-3426, 799 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2015).
     In deciding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on one of his grievances, the trial court enforced a procedural bar that the prison may have waived when prison officials made a decision on the merits despite the fact that the manner in which the prisoner brought his grievance was procedurally flawed. Further, the prisoner's lawsuit for an alleged beating by prison staff for which he was denied medical treatment was improperly dismissed when the court failed to follow the applicable two-step procedure for deciding exhaustion of remedies challenges. It failed to accept the prisoner's facts as true and did not identify and resolve particular factual disputes to determine if administrative remedies were exhausted. Whatley v. Warden, #13-15117, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16836 (11th Cir.).
     In a prisoner's lawsuit concerning alleged inadequate medical treatment, the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis of the plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies when the defendants failed to establish that there was an available procedure that the plaintiff did not exhaust. Without knowing more about what the applicable grievance procedures were, it was impossible to determine whether the plaintiff exhausted them, so further proceedings were ordered. Cantwell v. Sterling, #14-51095, 788 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2015).
     In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming excessive use of force by prison guards, his fear caused by an alleged threat of retaliation by one guard might be sufficient to essentially render an inmate grievance procedure unavailable and to excuse his failure to exhaust it. In this case, his claim that he perceived the guard's statements that he was "lucky" because his injuries "could have been much worse" to be threats that he should not use the grievance system was sufficient to satisfy the subjective prong of a test excusing exhaustion, but he failed to show a sufficient objective basis for his belief that he would suffer retaliation for using the grievance system, so his failure to exhaust was not excused. McBride v. Lopez, #12-17682, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11192 (11th Cir.).
     The trial court erroneously dismissed a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he faced unlawful retaliation for filing grievances based on an alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The alleged threats of retaliation by various defendants showed why he could not have filed the grievance about the reprisal internally at the facility, meeting the conditions for instead filing a grievance directly with the Secretary of the State Department of Correction. Dimanche v. Brown, #12-13694, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 6339 (11th Cir.).
     A prisoner claimed that officials and employees had violated his rights by failing to respond to his grievances asserting that his uniform and linens were not changed often enough, that he was exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke, and that he was given a haircut against his will with unsterilized scissors. The lawsuit was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The failure of prison officials to respond to a prisoner's grievances at the preliminary stage did not excuse him from exhausting the remaining steps. Wilson v. Epps, #13-60574, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 321 (5th Cir.).
     An Indiana prisoner who was a paraplegic claimed that correctional officials failed to adequately accommodate his disability. He claimed that he was subject to humiliating toileting arrangements, assigned to a cell that was so small that he had to move his wheelchair when his cellmate needed to use the toilet, had to travel over sidewalks that resulted in him tipping out of his wheelchair, that he was excluded from job training, transported in vehicles not equipped for wheelchairs, and denied access to the library and weight room. The defendants argued that he had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, to which he claimed that such efforts would have been futile as he was threatened when he filed grievances. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants without first holding a separate hearing on the futility argument. A federal appeals court found no error, although stating that it would have been preferable to first hold such a hearing, but that the futility argument could be decided in ruling on summary judgment. In this case, there were no disputed issues of material fact. Additionally, the state Department of Corrections and its Commissioner in his official capacity were not persons for purposes of a Sec. 1983, as claims against them were claims against the state. The plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies on all but two of his disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act--but the longer waits and humiliation he suffered by being transported in a van not equipped for wheelchairs did not amount to a denial of service. The failure to repair his wheelchair also did not show disability discrimination, especially as he was provided with a new wheelchair backrest before he filed his grievance. Wagoner v. Ind. Dep't of Corrections, #13-3839, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1783 (7th Cir.).
     A female prisoner claimed that prison officials put her in danger and caused gang members to threaten her by starting rumors that she was a convicted sex offender and changing her prison records. She could proceed with her appeal as a pauper despite having previously suffered "three strikes" by having lawsuits dismissed as frivolous when she argued that she faced an imminent danger at the time she filed the notice of appeal. Further proceedings were ordered on the issue of exhaustion of available administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, #13-56004, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 24694 (9th Cir.).
     A man claimed that he had been denied needed medical care for a pre-incarceration abdominal bullet wound during his nine months as a pretrial detainee in a county jail. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to properly exhaust available administrative remedies as there was no record of his having filed a grievance. He testified that he had never received or been allowed access to a copy of the jail's grievance procedure, while acknowledging that he knew of the existence of the procedure from other prisoners. He also stated that he had asked a guard for a grievance form, but never received one. There was testimony from another prisoner who overheard the plaintiff ask for a grievance form. There was also evidence that the plaintiff met with the warden, who promised to "take care" of the problem and speak to the medical staff, but allegedly did not suggest filing a grievance. The federal appeals court reinstated the lawsuit. When a jail official invites noncompliance with a grievance procedure, the detainee is not required to follow the procedure. Swisher v. Porter Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't., #13-3602, 769 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2014).
     In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that correctional officers used excessive force in restraining him, a federal appeals court reversed a grant of summary judgment on claims against one officer, as he had exhausted available administrative remedies against that defendant. The law did not require the jury instruction given that it was established that he had resisted the officers (because he was found guilty of resisting in a disciplinary hearing), and the plaintiff was prejudiced on his claims that were tried by the instruction given, so the judgment based on a jury verdict for the remaining defendants was vacated. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, #11-17911, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 21809 (9th Cir.).
     A federal prisoner filed a lawsuit claiming that he had been placed in administrative detention for 60 days in unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment for filing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), as well as a claim of failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on an assault on him by another prisoner. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, based on the plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies before suing, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), as well as a ruling that the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim was barred by his decision to file a FTCA claim regarding the assault. A federal appeals court vacated the trial court's ruling, holding that the failure to exhaust available administrative remedies should be excused because of specific allegations that one of the defendants intimidated him from pursuing a grievance by a threat to transfer him to another facility where she said he would be attacked and placing him in a special housing unit after he filed his FTCA claim, and that the FTCA claim did not bar the Eighth Amendment claim because the FTCA claim was dismissed by the trial court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and there was no judgment on the claim. Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, #13-4212, 766 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2014).
     A prisoner claimed that a guard assaulted him by putting a finger in his anus during a pat-down search. The guard contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed as the prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The prisoner asserted that he had filed a written grievance, but the trial court determined that this was false, as none of the prisoner's more than 100 grievances related to this alleged assault until one filed in August of 2009 which did not mention the guard and which itself conceded that it was untimely and only filed "for exhaustion purposes." The trial court ruled that the prisoner had committed perjury about the grievance in his testimony, and thereby forfeited his claim. The appeals court agreed, and ordered the prisoner to show cause why his ability to file lawsuits as a pauper should not be revoked and financial sanctions imposed. The prisoner, the court said, "has made deceit the norm in his litigation. He is a frequent plaintiff, and many of his suits entail dissembling." Rivera v. Drake, #14-1458, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17173 (7th Cir.).
     A prisoner broke his hand in a fight. He claimed that he filed an emergency grievance over an alleged inadequate medical treatment for his injury, but never received any response. He then was transferred to another facility, where he allegedly told an officer that he had been authorized, at the first facility, to be assigned to a bottom bunk, but was told to merely work things out with his cellmate. He claimed to have filed a grievance over this too, but prison officials said that he had not. His lawsuit was dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the claim against the receiving officer at the second facility, as the grievance allegedly filed had not mentioned that officer's name nor contained information from which he could be identified. If the defendants wanted to contest whether the emergency grievance at the first facility was filed, an evidentiary hearing would be required. Roberts v. Neal, #13-1335, 745 F.3d 232 (7th Cir. 2014).
    A former Iowa prisoner claimed that the Parole Board and State violated his constitutional rights based on a failure to conduct annual in-person interviews as to whether to grant parole. This claim was barred, a federal appeals court held, due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies before suing. Martin v. State of Iowa, #12-3714, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9200 (8th Cir.).
     A prisoner who had been released from custody pursued a lawsuit asserting claims for deliberate indifference to his mental health needs, violations of his right to exercise his religion, and interference with his right of access to the courts. A federal appeals court held that his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot as he was no longer in custody. His claim concerning his mental health treatment boiled down with a mere disagreement with the treatment provided, which was inadequate for a federal civil rights claim. His claims concerning religious freedom and access to the courts were properly dismissed, as he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies concerning these issues, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Lastly, he was properly denied an appointed lawyer as he was unlikely to succeed on the merits and was able to present the case adequately by himself. Cano v. Taylor, #10-17030, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 703 (9th Cir.).
     A California intermediate appeals court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit by an inmate complaining about the medical treatment he received from an optometrist under contract to provide services to prisoners. The prisoner failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies and no acceptable excuse for that was provided. The court rejected the argument that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies did not apply when the defendant was an independent contractor rather than a government employee.
Parthemore v. Col, #C072611, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 984.
     A paraplegic prisoner confined to a wheelchair sued, asserting claims for 14 alleged incidents of excessive force against him, denial of needed medical treatment, and the confiscation of his wheelchair, which was then replaced with one that lacked needed leg rests. He claimed that, with the supplied wheelchair, he was unable to shower or brush his teeth and sometimes was left lying in his own excrement for day. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of most of these claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by filing and pursuing grievances, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The trial judge was entitled to make a factual determination without the participation of a jury that the plaintiff was aware of the prison's grievance procedure and was able to access it. The appeals court found, however, that the prisoner did adequately exhaust administrative remedies as to two specific incidents. While he did not appeal his grievances concerning those two incidents, no appeal was available because no actual decision on the grievances concerning those incidents was received.
Small v. Whittick, #11-2378, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 17739 (3rd Cir.).
     An arrestee claimed that after he had been shot, correctional officers cuffed both his ankle and his wrist to a hospital bed, denied him medical treatment, and harmed him by restricting the movement of his injured leg. He claimed that he therefore suffered permanent harm from a pulmonary embolism which was life threatening. A federal appeals court ruled that summary judgment had been improperly granted to the defendants on the federal claims on the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, because the plaintiff was not a prisoner at the time thev filed the lawsuit so that the exhaustion of remedies provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply to him. Lesesne v. Doe, #11-7120, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7098 (D.C. Cir.).
     A detainee claimed that his classification into the general population violated his right and constituted failure to protect him from harm by other inmates. He also claimed that his serious medical needs were deliberately ignored. Summary judgment was properly granted for the defendant sheriff who showed that a grievance procedure existed and that the plaintiff did not exhaust it before filing his lawsuit. The fact that the detainee claimed to be unaware of the grievance procedure did not render it "unavailable" for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, as the detainee did not show it to be "unknowable." There was no evidence that the jail concealed the grievance procedure or that he could not have discovered it if he chose to pursue it. Albino v. Baca, #10-55702, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 19871 (9th Cir.).
     A prisoner's lawsuit concerning inadequate medical care, unlawful retaliation, and harassment was dismissed for allegedly failing to properly exhaust available administrative remedies. This was based on prison officials' argument that his grievances could have been denied on the basis of his failure to comply with mandatory time limits or complete the grievance process, procedural issues. In fact, however, three of his grievances for inadequate medical care were denied on their merits, thereby constituting exhaustion of the available process for them. Hammett v. Cofield, #11-2937, 681 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2012).
     A prisoner sued over a prison policy that he claimed limited the ability of Muslim inmates to perform regular congregational prayers by limiting the time and space for it. A federal appeals court held that the prisoner adequately exhausted his available administrative remedies by pursuing a 2005 grievance against the policy as first set in place by an earlier warden. Given that the same policy complained of was substantially continued by the new warden in 2007, the earlier grievance had been sufficient to put prison authorities on notice of the issues involved
JJohnson v. Killian, #10-4651,  2012 U.S. App. Lexis 9874 (2nd Cir.).
     A prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison employees used excessive force in removing him from his cell, breaking his arm, was properly dismissed for failure to properly exhaust available administrative remedies. Prison rules required him to file an internal complaint over the incident within 48 hours, which he did not do. The fact that he discussed his injuries with prison personnel within 48 hours, or participated in a later internal affairs investigation of the personnel involved in the incident did not alter the result. Pavey v. Conley, #10-3878, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 23318 (7th Cir.).
      A prisoner who claimed that he was beaten by correctional personnel in retaliation for having filed a grievance filed a federal civil rights lawsuit over the beating without first filing a new grievance over it. The defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed, given the requirement in 42 U.S.C. Sec 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. The appeals court held that the prisoner could proceed with his lawsuit if he could show that his fear of additional retaliation reasonably deterred him from filing another grievance. The appeals court concluded that when "a prison official inhibits an inmate from utilizing an administrative process through threats or intimidation, that process can no longer be said to be 'available.'" Tuckel v. Grover, #10-1353, 660 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011).
    A prisoner can go forward with his claim of inadequate dental care, assuming that he has exhausted his administrative remedies through the grievance process, which was not clear from the record. "A complete denial of readily available treatment for a serious medical condition constitutes deliberate indifference." The court therefore ordered further proceedings on the exhaustion of remedies issue. Bingham v. Thomas, #09-10349, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 18293 (11th).
     A prisoner filed a lawsuit alleging that a bailiff at a courthouse assaulted him without provocation when he was transported there for a proceeding. He did file a grievance concerning the incident before suing, and the Department of Corrections submitted the matter to Internal Affairs, where it was deemed not sustained. The prisoner's lawsuit was filed when the matter was sent to Internal Affairs. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. First, the prisoner was wrong in thinking that the exhaustion requirement did not apply to claims of excessive force. Second, his administrative remedies were not "exhausted" when the matter was sent to Internal Affairs for investigation. Third, while the failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction over a prisoner's claim, in that the defendant in a lawsuit may choose to not raise the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust such remedies, once the defense is raised, the court may not ignore it. Worthem v. Boyle, #09-3043, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23752 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     In a lawsuit brought by a former jail detainee against guards for allegedly allowing other prisoners to attack him, the lawsuit should not have been dismissed for failure to meet the requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(h) that available administrative remedies be exhausted prior to pursuing litigation, since that requirement only applies to current prisoners, not former prisoners. Talamantes v. Levya, #06-55939, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17510 (9th Cir.).
     Further proceedings were ordered in a case where a federal trial court dismissed a prisoner's lawsuit over claims that prison officials beat him during a lockdown, and then used threats to prevent him from filing a grievance, based on his supposed failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). The prisoner did send a complaint to the Internal Affairs division of the prison, but did not file an administrative remedy form, but the appeals court noted that the trial court did not address evidence that the prison's procedures converted all inmate complaints regarding the lockdown into administrative remedy forms, or evidence that the prison interfered with his use of the grievance system. Baez v. Fauver, #08-2777, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13692 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Further proceedings were ordered on prisoner's claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was continuously restrained in ambulatory restraints that allegedly prevented him from lying flat on his bed, bathing, or cleaning himself in a proper manner after using the toilet. The trial court improperly ruled for the defendants based only on written discovery materials, which failed to adequately address the subjective mental state of the defendant correctional employees. There were also factual issues as to whether the prisoner's alleged failure to timely file a grievance concerning the issue was excused because his restraint, followed by his 30 days of solitary confinement after his release from the restraints prevented him from filing a grievance within 20 days. Womack v. Smith, No. 08-2229, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 2840 (3rd Cir. Unpub.).
     The Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that a plaintiff prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies on a grievance before pursuing a lawsuit in court does not apply to a plaintiff who is no longer confined. The plaintiff , who was no longer incarcerated at the time he filed his lawsuit, therefore, despite not having exhausted administrative remedies, could pursue his failure to protect lawsuit concerning his beating by gang members after he was housed with them despite bearing the tattoos of a rival gang he previously belonged to. Valdivia v. County of Santa Cruz, Case Number 08-00916, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79089 (N.D. Cal.).
     A prisoner's claims concerning being denied access to religious materials and items needed to maintain his health should be dismissed because he failed to obtain a "Director's Level Decision" on his grievance, failing to exhaust his administrative remedies available under California law. Wilson v. Wann, No. CIV S-06-1629, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82318 (E.D. Ca.).
     In a prisoner's lawsuit alleging that deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs caused him to suffer an insulin-induced heart attack, further proceedings were ordered as to whether the prisoner's filing of a medical request form was the equivalent of filing a grievance, and, if it was, whether he should have or could have known how to exhaust that grievance. Williams v. Marshall, No. 08-11311, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22709 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     While an Oklahoma prisoner filed two separate grievances concerning the alleged failure to protect him from an assault by other prisoners, he failed to exhaust the administrative process on either of them, and did not follow established procedures. As a result, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Green v. Sirmons, No. 08-7032, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 23051 (10th Cir.).
     Prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec 1997e of the Prison Litigation Reform Act before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by taking DNA samples from him involuntarily after he was identified as a sex offender, allegedly on the basis of false information. The prisoner failed to follow the established grievance procedure as to his claims against a correctional officer. The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the prisoner's claim concerning incorrect information in his file stating that he had been convicted of statutory rape, since the parameters of any due process right to dispute and correct such information was not clearly established at the time at issue. Walker v. James, No. 07-1327, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22403 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Administrative appeals concerning an inmate's grievances occurred after he had filed his federal habeas corpus petition, so that he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing his federal action. The court rejected the prisoner's argument that delays in scheduling a rehearing that was ordered after one of his appeals showed that the review process was "patently futile" or "unavailable," and that his failure to exhaust administrative remedies should therefore be excused. Cartwright v. Outlaw, No. 07-40803, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20140 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     Prisoner failed to show that he exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit. Evidence showed that he knew that 11 of his 12 administrative grievances were rejected for procedural deficiencies, but he failed to correct identified errors or pursue administrative appeals. He argued that he should be excused from the exhaustion of remedies requirements because the grievance process was made unavailable to him by defendants failing to visit his cell area to accept and return grievances. Affidavits that he submitted in support of that argument, however, were entitled to "little weight," when a number of them contained typewritten signatures all dated on Friday December 1, 2006 at various locations throughout the county, which were all submitted by him together on Monday, December 4, 2006, which would have been impossible using the prison's mail system. This, the court stated, suggested that the prisoner had created those signatures himself. Queen v. McIntire, No. 08-3058, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18580 (10th Cir.).
     A prisoner who sued for injuries suffered from his alleged deliberate exposure to an electrical shock could be excused from the requirement that he exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit when he contended that he was unable to appeal the denial of his grievance based on a warden's alleged retaliatory threat to transfer him if he did so. If true, the warden thereby made it clear that the prisoner's overall condition would become worse if he pursued his appeal, which "effectively" made the administrative remedy unavailable. Further proceedings were ordered on disputed factual issues. Turner v. Burnside, No. 07-14791, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18510 (11th Cir.).
     Federal magistrate finds that Congress, in passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc, did not unequivocally waive state immunity from suits for damages, so that an inmate's claim for damages against an official in his official capacity was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and a claim for money damages was not available under the Act against a prison official in his individual capacity. On the prisoner's claim for alleged violation of his First Amendment rights to religious freedom by denying his request to purchase an ankh cross, however, the magistrate found that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e did not bar punitive damages because punitive damages are not for mental or emotional injury. Additionally, even if he were seeking damages for mental or emotional injury, those damages would potentially be recoverable because Sec. 1997e does not apply to First Amendment claims. Porter v. Caruso, No. 1:05-CV-562, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64347 (W.D. Mich.).
    While an inmate's claim concerning his allegedly inadequate mental health treatment focused on his desire to be admitted to a particular mental health facility, he was nevertheless required under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to exhaust all available administrative procedures before filing suit, even if those procedures could not provide him with the precise relief that he was seeking. He had an opportunity to appeal a decision to transfer him out of the facility after a determination that his conduct had become a "barrier" to his participation in the program there, but failed to appeal. Additionally, examining psychologists failed to find that he suffered from a mental illness. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants in his lawsuit. Gruenberg v. Lundquist, No. 08-1251, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18216 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     A prisoner is not entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on any genuine factual issue concerning a defense of failing to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e). In the prisoner's lawsuit claiming that an officer had used excessive force against him, the defendants claimed that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he hadn't filed a timely grievance with prison authorities. The prisoner claimed that he had been unable to exhaust such remedies since he was left-handed and he had a broken left arm, so that he could not prepare the grievance himself. The appeals court held that he was not entitled to a jury trial right to that issue, overturning a trial court decision to the contrary. Pavey v. Conley, No. 07-1426, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11963 (7th Cir.). Editor's Note: The only other federal appeals court to address the issue also rejected the argument that there was a right to a jury trial when there are genuine issues of material fact concerning a prisoner's compliance with the duty to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. Wyatt v. Terhune, #00-16568, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003).

     Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated by placing him in a cell with a defective ceiling that fell and injured him was properly rejected because of his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(1). His relocation to another cell and his alleged lack of knowledge of the names of the officers he claimed to have told about the problems with the ceiling did not excuse his failure to comply with a prison's 48-hour deadline for reporting the incident. Prisoners must comply with prison grievance rules, including time limitations, and there was no showing that he tried to learn the names of the correctional officers during the 48-hour period, or that he requested that the prison waive the 48-hour rule. Whitener v. Buss, No. 07-1490, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5799 (7th Cir.).
     A prisoner who failed to filed an intermediate appeal of the denial of his grievance in a timely manner, as required by prison grievance rules, failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies, so that prison officials were entitled to summary judgment in his lawsuit over the alleged seizing of legal materials from his cell. Rohn v. Beard, No. 07-4833, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5179 (3rd Cir.).
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Similar State Statutes
     A prisoner's lawsuit claimed that, after he filed a court action to require prison employees to provide him access to the law library, he was subjected to retaliation in the form of a "fabricated" disciplinary charge, and found guilty of the violation. The court found that the prisoner's claim was frivolous, and that he failed to show facts to support a claim for unlawful retaliation. The prisoner was also found to be an "abusive litigator" with at least "three strikes" under a Pennsylvania state statute--three previously dismissed frivolous lawsuits. The court revoked the prisoner's status as someone able to proceed in the case as a pauper, and also dismissed his appeal. Bailey v. Miller, No. 1688 C.D. 2007, 2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 95.
     Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he was beaten by prison officials during a fight involving another inmate and a correctional officer was properly dismissed for failing to exhaust available administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The result was not altered by the prisoner's claim that he was in lock-down isolation until six days after the fight, when there were procedures for late grievances, but only if a prisoner made a request to file a grievance late and showed good cause. The prisoner, having never followed those procedures, was not excused from the normal grievance requirements, and he also failed to appeal the denial of his grievances. The court also rejected an equal protection challenge to the exhaustion of remedies requirement. Mason v. Bridger, No. 07-14206, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 573 (11th Cir.).
     Prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) before filing a lawsuit concerning alleged denial of his right of access to the law library, alleged discipline imposed for asserting that right, and "involuntary servitude" and discipline imposed for not reporting to work, as well as a complaint about prison food being "poor." The prisoner himself admitted that he had not appealed his grievances after presenting them to the grievance committee, and had also failed to appeal his disciplinary claim after presenting it to the warden, as was possible under a prison operating procedure. Anderson v. Donald, No. 06-16322, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 569 (11th Cir.).
     Former inmate failed to exhaust grievance procedures during his incarcerations concerning his complaints about overcrowding and other allegedly unsanitary jail conditions he was aware of, and therefore could not pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit, based on the requirements of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The former inmate could, however, still pursue claims concerning injuries he did not discover until after he was released, including medical conditions, without attempting to exhaust administrative remedies. As a former prisoner, the jail's grievance procedure was no longer available to him, so any "exhaustion" requirement was excused. Allard v. Anderson, No. 05-10019, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29932 (5th Cir.).
     HIV positive prisoner could not pursue his federal civil rights lawsuit over the alleged denial of his daily medication when he failed to file any formal grievance. His claim that he sent letters complaining to the nurse administrator and the superintendent was insufficient to fulfill the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) that he exhaust available administrative remedies. Murray v. Prison Health Services, No. 06 Civ 15426, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74719 (S.D.N.Y.).
     A federal civil detainee sufficiently presented a claim that prison employees acted with deliberate indifference to his mental health needs by denying him needed psychiatric treatment despite his deteriorating condition, which went beyond mere negligence in care. Because he was a civil detainee, and not a prisoner, he was not required to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Additionally, as a civil detainee, his claims were analyzed under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, rather than under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The detainee was confined under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246(a), providing for the hospitalization (and continued detention) of a person in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons when their sentence is about to expire or when criminal charges against them have been dismissed on the basis of their mental condition, if they suffer from a mental disease or defect as a result of which their release would create a "substantial risk of bodily harm to another persons or serious damage to property of another." Hicks v. James, No. 06-6786, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28251 (4th Cir.).
     In a lawsuit in which a prisoner claimed that he was beaten on two occasions by correctional officers, the first claim against the officers was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), and a verdict in favor of the officers on the second beating claim was upheld. The trial court did not act erroneously in failing to give an "assault and battery" instruction separate from the "cruel and unusual punishment" instruction given, as the prisoner did not ask for his own instruction or present an argument as to why the instruction given was allegedly defective. Finally, a directed verdict in favor of a prison superintendent was properly decided as there could be no supervisory liability when there was no finding of a constitutional violation by the officers. Matthews v. Cordeiro, No. 05-1041, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28613 (1st Cir.).
     A prisoner claimed that he was denied two injections prescribed for treatment of syphilis. In the trial court, the case was dismissed based on the representation by correctional officials that the prisoner had only filed one grievance concerning medical treatment, but which did not raise the question of the injections. On appeal, the state located prison records showing that the prisoner had, in fact, filed another grievance concerning the failure to give him the injections, but argued that the prisoner did not complete the administrative process for that grievance. The appeals court ruled that the defendants were barred from asserting failure to exhaust available administrative remedies on that claim, since the late disclosure of the grievance on the injections did not allow the trial court to adequately address that issue. Cunningham v. Dept. of Correctional Services, No. 05-5072, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26608 (2nd Cir.).
     Prisoner's claim that he was denied his constitutional right of access to the courts because of the failure to process his administrative grievances was frivolous. The prisoner argued that this was the case because he was required to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a lawsuit over his claims. The appeals court noted that the trial court had assumed that the prisoner had exhausted available administrative remedies because his grievances had not been processed within the required time limits, so that access to the courts was not interfered with. Mahogany v. Miller, #06-30927, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24909 (5th Cir.).
     Prisoners seeking to assert claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act for alleged disability discrimination by prison officials (failure to accommodate and treat his mental illness) are required by The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to exhaust available administrative remedies before proceeding with a lawsuit.  In this case, the prisoner failed to exhaust such remedies before filing his lawsuit, which must, therefore, be dismissed. The court also noted, however, that because the prisoner had, in the meantime, proceeded to exhaust those administrative remedies, he could now file a new lawsuit based on his claims if he wanted. O'Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., No. 06-15972 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21170 (9th Cir.).
     Dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit for alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies was improper when the prisoner presented evidence that prison staff members were ignoring his initial grievance forms concerning religious harassment, and refused to give him forms necessary to continue the process of pursuing administrative remedies. Based on these allegations, the trial court was required to make a factual finding as to whether the prison grievance process was actually "available" to the plaintiff prisoner. Nixon v. Sanders, No. 06-1013, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19698 (8th Cir.).  
     Further proceedings ordered to determine whether threats plaintiff prisoner claimed to have received from one of the defendants rendered the prison grievance procedures unavailable to him, or whether the existence of those threats barred the defendants from using the prisoner's failure to exhaust those remedies as an affirmative defense to his claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Macias v. Zenk, No. 04-6131, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17795 (2nd Cir.).
     A grievance which was not filed in a timely manner could not be the basis for proper exhaustion of available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. The prisoner did not show that he had properly exhausted his administrative remedies concerning alleged discrimination against him based on his religion. Davison v. Maclean, No. 06-12755, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37449 (E.D. Mich.).
     A prisoner's failure to hire an expert witness to show that his medical needs, arising from his heart condition, were "serious" did not require summary judgment for the defendants in a lawsuit for alleged deliberate indifference to his condition and delay in providing him with medication. The court ruled that a lay person would know that medical needs in connection with such a heart condition were serious. Bosco v. C.F.G. Health Systems, NO. 04-CV-3517, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44314 (D.N.J.).
     A federal trial judge acted erroneously in dismissing all claims against all defendants when only one defendant had asserted that the prisoner had failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the claims against him. Hobbs v. Foreman, No. 06-3427, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13568 (8th Cir.).
     Federal appeals court reverses dismissal of prisoner's claims against certain prison officials who allegedly interfered with his receipt of medications prescribed for his mental illness and diabetes. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock, #05-7058, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007), the prisoner was not required to "plead and prove" that he had exhausted all available administrative remedies, so the dismissal of the lawsuit on that basis was improper. The appeals court did, however, uphold the dismissal of claims against one official whose involvement merely amounted to denying the prisoner's grievances over the alleged interference with receipt of the medication, as this did not show participation in the alleged violation of the prisoner's rights. Larson v. Meek, No. 04-1169, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14144 (10th Cir.).
     Inmate who completed only one step of a multi-step grievance process by the time he filed his federal civil rights lawsuit complaining about exposure to another inmate's second-hand cigarette smoke failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, so that the dismissal of his lawsuit was proper. Muhammad v. Beard, No. 06-4897, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12164 (3rd Cir.).
     The fact that a prisoner claimed ignorance of rules requiring him to file a step two grievance after his first step grievance had been referred to the Texas Department of Justice-Correctional Institutions Division did not excuse his failure to do so. Accordingly, he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies concerning alleged verbal abuse and threats by correctional officers. Aguirre v. Dyer, No. 05-41345, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12258 (5th Cir.).
     In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock, 05-7058, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007), the plaintiff prisoner did not have to show in his federal civil rights complaint that he had administratively exhausted his claims concerning alleged violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. Instead, the defendants had the burden of raising the alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as an affirmative defense in their response to his complaint. Additionally, the prisoner was free to proceed on claims on which he had exhausted available administrative remedies, even if he had not done so on other claims. The appeals court therefore vacated the trial courts dismissal of the lawsuit in its entirety and ordered further proceedings in accordance with Jones v. Bock. Milligan v. Reed, No. 07-1024, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11739 (10th Cir.).
     Prisoner did not have the burden of proving that he had exhausted available administrative remedies on his claim that he was exposed to harmful secondhand tobacco smoke, and did state that he filed a grievance concerning the issue, as well as explaining why he could not provide documentation on that grievance. His claim was therefore improperly dismissed. Roberts v. Barreras, No. 05-2373, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8631 (10th Cir.).
     When the rejection of a prisoner's grievance did not include an explanation of his appeal right, as required by prison regulations, prison officials failed to meet their burden of showing that the prisoner did not exhaust available administrative remedies, since this denied him access to the grievance process. The court therefore rejected a motion by prison officials to dismiss the prisoner's lawsuit allegedly that they failed to protect him from an attack by other prisoners. Tabarez v. Butler, No. CIV S-04-0360, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23642 (E.D. Cal.).
     In a federal civil rights lawsuit under Bivens, when a trial court cannot clearly conclude from the complaint that the plaintiff prisoner has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, or that he lacks a valid excuse for failing to do so, the complaint should not be dismissed without providing the plaintiff with an opportunity to address the issue.  Aquilar-Avellaveda v. Terrell, No. 06-3334, 478 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2007).
     Prisoner failed to show that he had exhausted available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) when the record established that he did not follow the prison's grievance procedures as set forth in an inmate handbook. Kinlaw v. Foster, No. 06-3446, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6570 (3rd Cir.).
     A federal trial court acted erroneously in dismissing all of a prisoner's claims after it determined that he had exhausted available administrative remedies as to only one of them. Appeals court rules, however, that the claim on which the prisoner exhausted the grievance procedure, denial of his right of access to the courts, was frivolous, since his constitutional right of access to the courts did not include a requirement that he be provided with the capacity to pursue a lawsuit for wrongful discharge. Stephens v. Guilfoyle, No. 06-6149, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3388 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
     Prisoner who did not specify in his grievance a particular person allegedly responsible for his grievances, and did not file his grievance against any defendant later named in his federal civil rights lawsuit failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), so that the lawsuit should be dismissed. Additionally, the grievance filed only raised one of the 8 claims that he later asserted in his lawsuit. Myers v. Metro Sheriff's Office, No. 3:07-cv-00015, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 626 (M.D. Tenn.). [N/R]
     Interpreting the scope of the "exhaustion of remedies" requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that: (a) Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, and inmates are not required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints--instead, defendant prison officials must specifically raise the failure to do so as a defense; (b) Exhaustion is not per se inadequate under the PLRA when an individual later sued was not named in the grievance, and the applicable procedural rules that a prisoner must properly exhaust are not defined by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself; and (c) The PLRA does not require dismissal of the entire complaint when a prisoner has failed to exhaust some, but not all, of the claims included in the complaint. Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058, 05-7142, 2007 U.S. Lexis 1325. [N/R]
     Based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058, 2007 U.S. Lexis 1325, a federal trial court acted erroneously in dismissing the entirety of a lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies on the basis of the plaintiff inmate's failure to plead that he had exhausted such remedies on each of his claims or with respect to each named defendant. Fisher v. Primstaller, No. 05-1026, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2365 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
     Prisoner who failed to show that he fully exhausted all available administrative remedies on one of his claims, that correctional officials did not give indigent inmates enough money to pay postage on legal documents, could not pursue any of the claims in his federal civil rights lawsuit. Amos v. Werholtz, No. 06-3258, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30625 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he was sexually assaulted by a correctional officer was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e when he filed a request to pursue an administrative remedy procedure but did so in an untimely manner. Johnson v. State of Louisiana, No. 06-30302, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26402 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
     As long as a prisoner's grievance gives officials sufficient information to investigate his complaint, the prisoner's failure to identify the specific employee he claims violated his rights did not violate the requirement that he exhaust available administrative remedies. In this case, regulations concerning such grievances said nothing about any requirement to identify specific employees in such grievances. Kikumura v. Osagie, No. 04-1249, 461 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
     When an inmate's federal civil rights lawsuit contained both claims on which he had exhausted available administrative remedies, and claim on which he had not, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that the lawsuit should be dismissed in its entirety. Rinard v. Luoma, No. 05-1150, 440 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     In a prisoner's federal lawsuit seeking to put forth several claims against prison officials based on multiple prison grievances, the plaintiff was required to have exhausted each claim against each of the named defendants during the processing of at least one of the grievances. Abdul-Muhammad v. Kempker, No. 05-1872, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20455 (8th Cir.). [N/R]
     The "routine" dismissal of a lawsuit over prison conditions because of the failure to exhaust available administrative remedies is not a "strike" for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's "three strikes" rule. Green v. Young, No. 04-7252, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 18685 (4th Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
     The fact that the plaintiff prisoner could not have obtained money damages through the administrative grievance procedure on his claim that prison officials provided him with inadequate medical care did not excuse his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing a federal civil rights lawsuit as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Additionally, when there was no evidence that prison officials interfered with his access to the administrative appeals process, he was not excused from pursuing administrative appeals from his initial grievance, even if he was confused about what to do after being transferred to another facility. Hill v. Chalanor, No. 9:01CV0018, 419 F. Supp. 2d 255 (N.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
     Prisoner failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit concerning an alleged assault on him by several correctional officers. The prisoner allegedly knew that the grievance procedure was the proper place to complain about this, and filed an initial grievance but failed to appeal its denial. He raised the issue also in an appeal of a disciplinary action against him, but was told that disciplinary proceedings and their appeals were not the proper place to pursue that claim. Reynoso v. Swezey, No. 99-CV-6368, 423 F. Supp. 2d 73 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
     Dismissal of a prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit was a proper sanction for his submission of a falsified document he created which contained information that he could not possibly have known at the time he represented it was prepared. The prisoner submitted the document to try to show that he had properly exhausted available administrative remedies. Campos v. Correction Officer Smith, No. 04-CV-60541, 418 F. Supp. 2d 277 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
     U.S. Supreme Court rules that prisoners are required, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, to properly exhaust available administrative remedies for their grievances before pursuing federal lawsuits over prison conditions, including complying with procedural rules, such as deadlines for grievance filing. Woodford v. Ngo, No. 05-416, 2006 U.S. Lexis 4891. [2006 JB Aug]
     Federal trial court properly granted summary judgment to prison officials on the basis of plaintiff prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). While the prisoner filed a grievance, he failed to direct it to the proper facility even though he was informed of the policies concerning where grievances should be sent. Additionally, the prisoner provided no justification for why he delayed filing his grievance for a three-year period. Smith v. Collins, No. 05-1535, #05-1535, 167 Fed. Appx. 830 (2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     A prisoner must exhaust prison grievance procedures before "submitting any papers" to a federal court, and even if he subsequently exhausted administrative remedies by the time the court approved his application to proceed as a pauper, a complaint sent to the court before exhaustion should be dismissed, federal appeals court rules. Vaden v. Summerhill, No. 05-15650, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13921 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
     Legally blind prisoner failed to show that he exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing suit, as required under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Plaintiff, therefore, could not proceed with his lawsuit claiming that correctional officers acted with deliberate indifference in failing to place him in a single-occupancy cell after a cellmate allegedly assaulted him, resulting in his subsequent poisoning. Fry v. Al-Abduljalil, No. 05-1179, 164 Fed. Appx. 788 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his civil rights were violated by requiring him to work for less than minimum wage and that he was unlawfully retaliated against for filing grievances was properly dismissed based on his failure to plead, in his complaint, that he had exhausted his available administrative remedies. Davis v. Simmons, No. 05-3233, 165 Fed. Appx. 687 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Requirement, under Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing a federal civil rights lawsuit applies to prisoners held in a privately-run state prison. Federal appeals court upholds dismissal, without prejudice, of a prisoner's claim that he had been denied needed medical treatment, based on his failure to complete all of a privately-run prison's four-step grievance procedure. Bias v. Cornell Corrections, Inc., No. 04-6353, 159 Fed. Appx. 868 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that prison's non-smoking policy was unconstitutional was barred by his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Harmon v. Gallegos, No. 05-3209, 158 Fed. Appx. 87 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Requirement that prisoner's exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit over prison conditions applies to a claim by a prisoner in a privately run prisoner over the alleged confiscation of several magazines by a prison employee. Roles v. Maddox, No. 04-35280, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5037 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Apr]
     A federal prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e) prior to filing a lawsuit was excused because of the prison's failure to inform him of a new appeals procedure. His lawsuit seeking $113.40 in damages for personal property allegedly lost during a transfer to a new facility, therefore, rather than being dismissed, would merely be stayed while the prisoner continued with the administrative appeals process. Campbell v. Chaves, #04-78, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D. Ariz. 2005). [N/R]
     While prisoner filed grievances concerning his claim that he was illegally terminated from his kitchen work assignment on the basis of his race, he failed to show that he appealed his grievance to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and therefore did not exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Lyons v. Trinity Services Group, Inc., No. 02-23142, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court upholds injunction requiring the provision of both general educational services and special educational services for school age inmates incarcerated in New York City jails, based on the failure to comply with federal law. Portions of the injunction based on alleged violations of state law, the court held, were beyond the power of the federal trial court. City defendants had previously waived a defense of failure to exhaust available administrative remedies by stating that no such remedies were applicable to the claims made in the class action lawsuit. Handberry v. Thompson, No. 03-0047, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1062 (2d Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
     Prisoner failed to show that he had exhausted available administrative remedies prior to filing his civil rights lawsuit against his supervisors in the prison sign shop for allegedly failing to provide him with adequate ventilation, training, and equipment. While he asserted that his step three grievance had not been answered by prison officials, he failed to show that prison officials could not still make a timely response to the step three grievance. Blay v. Reilly, No. 04-1347, 152 Fed. Appx. 747 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Requirement, under Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e)(a) that available administrative remedies be exhausted before a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison conditions is filed did not apply to a lawsuit by relatives of a prisoner who died while incarcerated, as they were not prisoners, and the prisoner, at the time the lawsuit was filed, was no longer "confined." Relatives stated a possible claim for deliberate indifference to the medical and security needs of the deceased prisoner, who they alleged was forcibly intoxicated with morphine by fellow prisoners, with the drug causing his death by overdose. Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez, No. CIV. 03-2326, 397 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D. Puerto Rico. 2005). [N/R]
     Diabetic prisoners who allegedly suffered amputations because of failure to receive adequate medical care for their illness were barred from pursuing federal civil rights claims when they failed to use a prison's formal grievance procedure to complain about their treatment. Their contention that medical personnel had encouraged them to instead pursue any complaints directly with them was no excuse when no one prevented them from using the grievance procedure. Gibson v. Weber, No. 04-3932, 431 F.3d 339 (8th Cir. 2005). [2006 JB Feb]
     A prisoner's participation in an internal affairs investigation concerning his alleged beating by correctional officers did not substitute for the requirement that the prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a lawsuit for damages. Panaro v. City of N. Las Vegas, No. 04-15750, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 28080 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Feb]
     Prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated because he was ordered to clean a prison dumpster of caustic chemicals without adequate protective clothing. Because he only exhausted his remedies concerning alleged inadequate medical care for his injuries arising after the incident, his Eighth Amendment claim concerning the order itself was properly dismissed. Mathews v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, No. 05-1010, 146 Fed. Appx. 988 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit concerning alleged inadequate medical care was not barred by failure to exhaust available administrative remedies when court found that he had no remedies available to exhaust. Prisoner's complaint was that prison medical personnel failed to arrange, in a timely manner, for him to be treated by specialists at a hospital where he was ultimately diagnosed as suffering from throat cancer. Appealing the denial of his administrative grievance, the court found, would not have provided him with any relief, since by the time the right to appeal existed, he had already been transferred, and had already suffered the harm. Gabby v. Meyer, #04-C0476, 390 F. Supp. 2d 801 (E.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
     While prisoner filed an administrative grievance concerning an alleged assault on him by correctional officers, he failed to follow prison procedures for appealing the denial of that grievance, requiring dismissal of his lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Jacobs v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, No. 05-1455, 148 Fed. Appx. 107 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prison medical director was entitled to dismissal of inmate's federal civil rights lawsuit concerning treatment for old bullet wounds which resulted in four bullets lodged in his body, based on prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing litigation. Burrell v. Powers, No. 04-3745, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26902 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Jan]
     Prisoner's lawsuit, claiming that he contracted histoplasmosis, a fungal disease affecting the lungs, from pigeon and bat droppings at prison, was properly dismissed without prejudice when he failed to specify the claims he asserted in prior administrative hearings, based on the requirement, in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, that he exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing litigation. Clayton v. U.S. Depart. of Justice, No. 04-5536, 136 Fed. Appx. 840 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     A parole violator who was confined at a New York state drug treatment campus was a "prisoner" subject to the requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, requiring him to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the county, sheriff, and correctional officers. Summary judgment was therefore properly granted to the defendants based on his failure to comply with this requirement before pursuing his lawsuit. Ruggiero v. County of Orange, No. 03 CIV. 1396, 386 F. Supp. 2d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court rules that it is not legally required that trial court dismiss a prisoner's entire complaint when it contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Judge should instead dismiss only the claims on which the prisoner has not exhausted available administrative remedies. Lira v. Herrera, No. 02-16325, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 23550 (9th Cir.). [2005 JB Dec]
     Jail detainee was excused from having to exhaust jail grievance procedures before suing for alleged denial of medical care and treatment for her broken arm, when she presented evidence that the jail had a "flat rule" that complaints concerning medical treatment were "not grievable." Rancher v. Franklin County, Ky., No. 04-5220, 122 Fed. Appx. 240 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
     Pretrial detainee failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, before filing his civil rights lawsuit claiming that county jail employees failed to adequately protect him from assault by fellow prisoners. While he filed administrative grievances, he admitted that he did not appeal their denials, and, based on that admission, the alleged failure to provide him with written denials of his grievances did not excuse his failure to appeal. Truly v. Sheahan, No. 04-2280, 135 Fed. Appx. 869 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
    Prisoner failed to sufficiently exhaust available administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the denial of his request for surgery for a problem with his arm and the denial of his request for a single-occupancy cell. While the prisoner filed grievances and pursued appeals, he failed to name any of the defendants named in his federal civil rights lawsuit in his grievances. Williams v. Overton, No. 03-2507, 136 Fed Appx. 859 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Appeals court orders further proceedings to determine whether prisoner, in filing three inmate request forms asking for a change of cell to get away from a cellmate who allegedly threatened him, sufficiently exhausted available administrative remedies to allow him to proceed with a federal civil rights lawsuit for alleged failure to protect him after the cellmate allegedly attacked him and he was moved to a different cell. Braham v. Armstrong, 03-0153, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21085 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB Nov]
     While prisoner's partial paralysis following a stroke might have justified his failure to file a grievance concerning his medical treatment within fourteen days as required by prison rules, he failed to explain why he waited almost two years before filing a grievance. His federal civil rights lawsuit, therefore, was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Williams v. Comstock, 04-6453, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21086 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB Nov]
     Further proceedings were required to determine whether prisoner's actions in sending multiple letters and request forms to prison officials was sufficient to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, allowing him to proceed with his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that prison officials unconstitutionally failed to protect him from violent assault by another prisoner. Aponte v. Armstrong, #03-0186, 137 Fed. Appx. 414 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner adequately showed that he exhausted available administrative remedies before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit concerning various conditions of his confinement when the defendant prison officials did not dispute his claim that they failed to respond to the grievances he filed and failed to inform him of the grievance procedures. Turner v. Huston, No. 04-1850, 137 Fed. Appx. 880 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner's claim that his rights were violated when prison officials had him undergo a 2-hour transport to another prison's medical facility, rather than being taken to a local hospital for treatment was a lawsuit about prison conditions subject to the exhaustion of remedies requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. In this case the prisoner failed to file a grievance concerning the incident and that failure was not excused by his claim that his blood sugar level was "out of control" at the time of the incident. McCray v. First State Medical System, No. CIV. 04-173, 379 F. Supp. 2d 635 (D. Del. 2005). [N/R]
     While prisoner did not exhaust his available administrative remedies concerning some of his claims against certain defendants, he would be allowed to proceed with the claims on which he had done so. The trial court reached this decision, rejecting the "total exhaustion" rule recently adopted by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Jones Bey v. Johnson, No. 032331, 407 F.3d 801 (6th Cir. 2005) The trial court found that this panel's decision was "void" under Sixth Circuit law because there was also a prior applicable 6th Circuit panel decision in Hartsfield v. Vidor, No. 99a0406, 199 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 1999), holding that in a prisoner's civil rights lawsuit, unexhausted claims should be dismissed without prejudice, and exhausted claims should be allowed to proceed. The trial court found that, in light of these two conflicting panel decisions, the earlier decision remained controlling until overturned by the entire Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Garner v. Unknown Napel, No. 2:05-CV-79, 374 F. Supp. 2d 582 (W.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
     Officer accused of using excessive force against prisoner who assaulted him was not entitled to dismissal of the lawsuit based on the prisoner's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The prisoner filed a grievance concerning the officer's action, and allegedly failed to appeal further since there was never any response to his grievance. Brengettcy v. Horton, No. 03-3813, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19362 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Oct]
     A prisoner's "untimely" administrative grievance was insufficient to satisfy the requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, that available administrative remedies be exhausted before filing suit. Appeals court orders prisoner's lawsuit, asserting claims for alleged exposure to hazardous chemicals, and harassment and retaliation by prison officials, dismissed. Johnson v. Meadows, No. 03-15636, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15233 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
     Prisoner failed to adequately exhaust available administrative remedies when he filed written grievances concerning his claims for disciplinary parole consideration and retaliation, but failed to seek final administrative review of these grievances. Jones v. Maher, No. 04-3993, 131 Fed. Appx. 813 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit had to be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety when he failed to file grievances concerning his claims of denial of medical assistance, and filed his lawsuit before exhausting his available administrative remedies on his claim that he was assaulted by a correctional officer. Prisoners are required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, the court rules, to totally exhaust available administrative remedies on all claims contained in their lawsuit before filing suit, under the principles stated in Bey v. Johnson, No. 03-2331, 407 F.3d 801 (6th Cir. 2005). Sanchez-Ramos v. Sniezek, No. 4:05CV780, 370 F. Supp. 2d 652 (N.D. Ohio 2005). [N/R]
     Lawsuit challenging the conditions of inmate's confinement at two federal facilities was properly dismissed because he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Patel v. Fleming, No. 04-6266, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 14654 (10th Cir.) [2005 JB Sep]
     Prisoner did not fail to properly exhaust available administrative remedies on religious freedom claim. While the issue of the alleged untimeliness of his grievance was raised in the administrative process, correctional officials principally rejected his grievance on its merits. Conyers v. Abitz, No. 04-1630, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15130 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Sep]
     Trial court improperly failed to assess whether prisoner's letters of complaint and appeals of misbehavior reports filed against him were adequate to put prison on notice for purposes of determining whether he exhausted administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e prior to filing lawsuit, or whether special circumstances justified his failure to file a formal grievance. Boddie v. Bradley, No. 02-0135, 129 Fed. Appx. 658 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit against federal prison dentists for failure to provide him with needed treatment was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 03-3361, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 13144 (10th Cir.). [2005 JB Aug]
     Former prisoner did not have to plead, in his complaint, that he had exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit claiming that there was deliberate indifference to his urgent medical needs while he was confined for seven hours in the local jail. Appeals court finds that, as a former prisoner, the plaintiff was not subject to the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(h), and that, even if he was, he was under no obligation to plead exhaustion in his complaint, since the Act's exhaustion requirement is an "affirmative defense that the defendant has the burden to plead and to prove." Nerness v. Johnson, No. 04-2679, 401 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     A prisoner is not required to allege, in his complaint, that he has exhausted all available administrative remedies, so that the dismissal of a lawsuit on that basis, without giving the prisoner a chance to respond concerning the issue, was improper. Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health Serv., No. 04-6885, 407 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Jul]
     Federal appeals court rules that prisoner's lawsuit, in its entirety, should be dismissed when he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies on any of its claims. Jones Bey v. Johnson, No. 03-2331 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 7166 (6th Cir). [2005 JB Jul]
     Special circumstances justified the plaintiff prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies concerning his claim against a prison dentist for deliberate indifference when he did not learn, until he had been transferred to another facility, that his pain resulted from a foreign object and reactive lesion in the part of his mouth from which a dentist had extracted a tooth. Borges v. Admin. for Strong Mem. Hosp., #99-CV-6351, 337 F.Supp.2d 424, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20595 (W.D.N.Y. 2004); prior decis. at 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18596. [N/R]
     Prisoner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, on his claim that a correctional officer confiscated his contact lenses because he is homosexual. While he pursued grievances concerning the contact lenses, he failed to assert in those grievances that he was a homosexual or that his sexual orientation was related to the reason why the officer took the actions against him. Goldsmith v. White, No. 5:04cv72, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (N.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, on his claim that a correctional officer was engaged in racial discrimination in seizing his property purchased in the prison commissary. While the prisoner prepared a number of statements about the incident he circulated to prison officials, they were never property submitted to the warden or other officials as required by regulations. Additionally, the statements circulated merely summarized the incident without making any claim of racial discrimination. The prisoner's lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. Smith v. Rudicel, No. 04-3462, 123 Fed. Appx. 906 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit challenging his discipline as a violation of his First Amendment rights should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Federal appeals court rules that he did exhaust his administrative remedies when his appeal of his denied grievance was rejected as untimely. The Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement, the court holds, does not bar consideration of a prisoner's claims when his administrative appeal was denied on state law procedural grounds. Ngo v. Woodford, No. 03-16042, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 4809 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
     Despite a prisoner's "poor English" and "limited education," his failure to comply in a timely manner with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e that he exhaust available administrative remedies would not be waived, since his previous federal civil rights lawsuit had been dismissed for the same reason, and his access to the grievance appeals process had not been obstructed. A prisoner, the court ruled, cannot attempt to circumvent the requirement in the Act that they exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit by simply waiting to bring their lawsuit until their administrative remedies are time-barred. Martinez v. Williams, No. 04 CIV.1938, 349 F. Supp. 2d 677 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).[N/R]
     California prisoner complied with the requirement that he exhaust available administrative remedies by filing provided form describing his alleged disability of visual impairment and the accommodations he requested. His failure to identify specific prison employees as allegedly responsible for his grievances did not alter the result when the form supplied by the state did not ask for particular individuals to be named. Butler v. Adams, No. 04-15478, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1898 (9th Cir. 2005) [2005 JB Apr]
     Colorado state prisoners who sued to challenge their conditions of confinement in the county jail they were transferred to could not pursue their claims when they had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). The record in the case showed that the prisoners failed to file grievances in the jail. This failure was not excused by the initial refusal of jail officials to furnish them with jail grievance forms because they were state prisoners, when the grievance forms were eventually provided. Garcia v. Taylor, No. 03-1361, 113 Fed. Appx. 857 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit over the alleged unauthorized deduction of $150 from his inmate trust account was properly dismissed when he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Buhl v. United States, 117 Fed. Appx. 39 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal trial court could exercise its discretion to allow plaintiff prisoner to proceed on a claim against one doctor asserting inadequate medical treatment on which administrative remedies had been exhausted, while dismissing other claims against other defendants against whom administrative remedies had not been exhausted. The exhaustion of remedies provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, does not require the court to apply a "complete exhaustion" rule to the prisoner's complaint, dismissing all claims merely because administrative remedies had not been exhausted with respect to some of them. Hubbard v. Thakur, No. 03-10058, 344 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit alleging improper denial of medical and dental care was properly dismissed when he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. He failed to follow advised procedures for appealing the initial rejection of his grievance after being told that his appeal had incorrectly been sent directly to the prison's superintendent instead of the grievance clerk. Colon v. Harvey, No. 02-CV-6407, 344 F. Supp. 2d 896 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     A federal trial court improperly dismissed a prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. The prisoner sued correctional officials, claiming various violations of his constitutional rights in connection with his attempt to be placed on the indigent prisoner list so that he would be provided with personal hygiene products. A federal appeals court held that the prisoner adequately exhausted his available administrative remedies when the warden granted him the relief he sought in his grievance and placed him on the indigent inmate list. He could, accordingly, proceed with his federal civil rights claim concerning actions of correctional officials prior to that grant of relief. Malone v. Franklin, No. 04-6193, 113 Fed. Appx. 364 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court reinstates Buddhist prisoner's claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) that it violated his rights to deny him a special religious diet without meat, dairy products, or "pungent vegetables." Exhaustion of remedies under Religious Freedom Restoration Act was sufficient to support claim under RLUIPA, since the legal standards under both statutes were identical. Dehart v. Horn, #03-4250, 390 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Feb]
     A New York prisoner's failure to file a timely appeal to the highest administrative level of his grievance against a correctional officer concerning his removal from his porter work assignment barred his federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. His failure to do so was not excused by his transfer to another correctional facility. Soto v. Belcher, No. 01 Civ. 7520, 339 F. Supp. 2d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner ruled to have adequately exhausted available administrative remedies even when he had not "technically exhausted" procedures prescribed by state law for inmate grievances because he had pursued both formal and informal avenues to present his grievances and did not receive any formal response to his grievance until five months after it was filed. Defendant correctional officers were therefore not entitled to summary judgment in the prisoner's lawsuit claiming that they had assaulted him. Jenkins v. Raub, No. 01-CV-64221, 310 F. Supp. 2d 502 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court orders further proceedings concerning whether prisoner was justified in failing to file a grievance concerning correctional officers' alleged assault on him by their threats of retaliation if he did so. Hemphill v. State of New York, #02-0164, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
     Under California statutory law, both the State and the Department of Corrections were immune from liability on a prisoner's claims arising out of alleged medical malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Prisoner was also required, under both federal and state law, to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing his claims in court, and failed to do so. Wright v. State of Cal., No. C044302, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2004). [N/R]
     Man held under Illinois sexually dangerous persons statute, under which criminal proceedings are stayed for the purpose of treatment for mental illness was a pretrial detainee properly classified as a "prisoner" for purposes of the exhaustion of remedies requirement and "three strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. His lawsuit asserting a claim for alleged inadequate access to prison law library was therefore properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Kalinowski v. Bond, No. 02-3273, 358 F.3d 978 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 124 S. Ct. 2843 (2004). [2004 JB Dec]
     Defendants in prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit were entitled to summary judgment when he failed to make specific allegations from which the trial court could determine which, if any, of his claims he had exhausted available administrative remedies on, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, and he failed to identify the prison employees named as defendants in his lawsuit in his grievances and failed to assert grievances about any specific action allegedly performed by them. Williams-El v. McLemore, No. CIV. 98-74042, 327 F. Supp. 2d 784 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
     When the plaintiff prisoner showed that he had exhausted available administrative remedies as to some claims in his lawsuit, but not as to others, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, did not require the dismissal of his lawsuit in its entirety. Prisoner stated an arguable due process claim by alleging that he was not given any outside exercise for a period of time and was prevented from showering for weeks during his disciplinary confinement in a special housing unit when the only evidence supporting the discipline was an accusation from a confidential informant that he had been selling drugs. Ortiz v. McBride, No. 02-0088, 380 F.3d 649 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner, who received favorable rulings in his prison grievances concerning alleged inadequate medical treatment, and specifically, special orthopedic footwear provided to him after foot surgery, sufficiently exhausted his available administrative remedies when the favorable rulings allegedly failed to result in any relief. Appeals court states that a prisoner who does not receive promised relief under such circumstances is not required, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, to file yet another grievance concerning that. Abney v. McGinnis, #02-0241, 380 F.3d 663 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court rules that Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that prisoners exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing lawsuits applies to prisoners in private facilities. Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, No. 03-5227, 380 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Nov]
     Even though a pretrial detainee was moved from one county jail to another and kept in solitary confinement until after the deadline for filing an administrative grievance had passed, and allegedly was never informed of the grievance procedure, he was not excused from the requirement under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) that he exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that officers used excessive force against him during a strip search. Court notes that the detainee was not prevented from filing a grievance concerning this issue, and in fact, he did submit requests for medical treatment during that time. Turrietta v. Barreras, No. 02-2343, 91 Fed. Appx. 640 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner who failed to appear in person before prison's review board did not thereby fail to exhaust his available administrative remedies when there was no rule requiring those pursuing grievances before it to appear in person and he allegedly was not informed that the board wanted him to personally appear. Federal appeals court, therefore, reverses dismissal of prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim against correctional officers for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Carroll v. Yates, No. 01-2931, 362 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner was required under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing disability discrimination claim under Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq., against correctional officials for their alleged failure to treat his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Chamberlain v. Overton, 326 F. Supp. 2d 811 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner's raising of his complaint in a disciplinary hearing might amount, in some circumstances, to exhaustion of remedies prior to commencing litigation for purposes of Prison Litigation Reform Act. Johnson v. Testman, No. 02-0145 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 17236 (2d Cir. 2004) [2004 JB Oct]
     Prisoner's civil rights lawsuit claiming that correctional officers assaulted him was barred on the basis of his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. While he did write letters of complaint to prison officials, he did not report the alleged assault to the officers' immediate supervisor, and did not appeal adverse determinations concerning his complaint. Stephenson v. Dunford, 320 F. Supp. 2d 44 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     California prisoner's lawsuit claiming that corrections officers assaulted him dismissed for failure to totally exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Entire complaint dismissed when it contained a mixture of both exhausted and unexhausted claims, although prisoner could, if he wanted, file a new complaint concerning only claims on which he had exhausted administrative remedies. Mubarak v. California Department of Corrections, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner was excused from having to exhaust administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights lawsuit against jail employees' alleged use of excessive force against him both in reliance of then applicable case law later rejected by U.S. Supreme Court, and also because his transfer to another facility made administrative remedies at the county jail no longer "available" to him. Rodriguez v. Westchester County Jail Corr. Dept., No. 02-0325, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 12488 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
     Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against correctional officials for allegedly keeping him locked in a cell without adequate heating and ventilation was improperly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Under prison's grievance policy, these issues were non-grievable since they involved many prisoners. Figel v. Bouchard, #03-1567, 89 Fed. Appx. 970 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
     Trial court improperly dismissed prisoner's lawsuit concerning prison officials' alleged failure to protect him from another inmate on the basis of failure to exhaust available administrative remedies without considering prisoner's claim that prison officials prevented him from exhausting his administrative remedies by beating him, threatening him, denying him grievance forms and writing implements, and transferring him to another facility. Trial court could also have considered his claim that complaints to the FBI constituted an informal exhaustion of his administrative grievances sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an "affirmative defense," and is subject to "estoppel" barring the defense if prison officials actually did prevent a prisoner from pursuing a grievance. Ziemba v. Wezner, No. 02-0340, 366 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Prison officials could assert a prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as a defense in a second summary judgment motion in his federal civil rights lawsuit after having failed to do so in a first summary judgment motion, and even after the time period for filing such a motion had expired. First, the defendants had also alleged this defense in their answer to the complaint. Second, since the defendants could have asserted the same defense at trial, allowing the summary judgment motion to be filed saved the prisoner the expense of preparing for a trial that he would have lost. Summary judgment for prison officials upheld. Villante v. Vandyke, No. 03-0044, 93 Fed. Appx. 307 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Former prisoner could pursue claims for nominal damages for alleged violations of his First Amendment rights while incarcerated despite provision in Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) preventing him from pursing claims for compensatory damages in the absence of physical injury. Further, the fact that the prisoner had been released did not make his claim moot, as nominal damages are past damages. McDaniels v. McKinna, #03-1231, 96 Fed. Appx. 575 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) before filing a lawsuit concerning prison officials' alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs concerning his feet and footwear. While he did file a prison grievance, he did not mention these officials in the first step of his grievance procedure. Vandiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
     Statute of limitations on prisoner's disability discrimination claim based on his dismissal from prison job was tolled (extended) under Pennsylvania state law during the time that a prison official delayed filling out an administrative complaint form, even though the delay was not intentional, but merely negligent. Limitations period was also extended during the time that the prisoner pursued the exhaustion of his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Howard v. Mendez, 304 F. Supp. 2d 632 (M.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit concerning complaints about his medical treatment, when most of the complained of treatment took place after he filed his administrative grievance, was properly dismissed in its entirety for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Ross v. County of Bernalillo, No. 02-2337, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8362 (10th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Jun]
     Dismissal of federal prisoner's claim for alleged loss of his property due to negligence of prison employees was proper. No such claim could be brought under Federal Tort Claims Act, and prisoner failed to exhaust available prison grievance procedure as to any civil rights claim. Further, mere negligence leading to loss of property cannot be the basis of a constitutional claim. Steele v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, #02-1492, 355 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB May]
     Prisoner showed that he exhausted his available administrative remedies on his claim that inadequate medical care was provided for his Crohn's disease and diabetes when prison officials failed to respond to his filed grievance during the subsequent four-year time period. Woulard v. Food Service, 294 F. Supp. 2d 596 (D. Del. 2003). [N/R]
     Prison officials granted summary judgment on prisoner's claim that he was beaten by correctional officers after defendants presented evidence supporting their contention that he had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Arnold v. Goetz, 245 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoner's claims against 26 correctional employees and officials for alleged denial of adequate medical care and unconstitutional conditions of confinement dismissed based on his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. McCoy v. Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court rules that a dismissal of a prisoner's civil rights lawsuit for failing to exhaust administrative remedies was improper in the absence of prior notice and an opportunity to respond being provided to the prisoner. Mojias v. Johnson, No. 03-0121, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 24693, 351 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Feb]
     A genuine factual issue as to whether a prisoner exhausted his administrative remedies concerning his grievance over missing a night-time dosage of prescribed pain medication precluded summary judgment for state Department of Corrections Commissioner in prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit. Richardson v. Goord, #02-289, 347 F.3d 431 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
    Prisoner's lawsuit was improperly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies when he was actually unable to pursue a grievance, allegedly because prison officials refused to provide him with the necessary grievance forms. Mitchell v. Horn, #98-1932, 318 F.3d 523 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Jan]
     Pennsylvania prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights claim asserting that correctional officers failed to protect him against attack by another inmate when he did not file administrative grievances within the 15-day time period established by the state's inmate grievance system. Casey v. Smith, No. 02-4245, 71 Fed. Appx. 916 (3rd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies for the alleged confiscation of his property required the dismissal without prejudice of his federal civil rights claim alleging that the seizure of his sexually explicit materials violated his First Amendment rights. McMillian v. Litscher, No. 99-3029, 72 Fed. Appx. 438 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     When defendant prison officials suggested, but did not affirmatively plead as a defense, the prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, their dismissal motion would be converted into a motion for summary judgment by the court, with an order providing for further briefing or the production of evidence, and the plaintiff prisoner given an opportunity to respond. Torrence v. Pesanti, 239 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court finds that a prisoner can exhaust his administrative remedies by presenting his complaints to prison officials, even if they refuse to address the grievance because it was untimely under prison rules. To pursue a claim in his subsequent lawsuit, however, the grievance must have provided prison officials notice of the nature of the complaint. Plaintiff prisoner did not, in his grievance, provide notice that he was asserting a failure to protect claim against correctional officers who allegedly saw a fellow officer beat him but failed to intervene, but $70,000 in damages awarded against officer who allegedly beat him. Thomas v. Woolum, #01-3227, 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
     Prisoner's claims for compensation for personal property that correctional officers allegedly destroyed were barred when prisoner failed to show that he had exhausted available administrative remedies as required under the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Khan v. U.S., 271 F. Supp. 2d 409 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoners asserting claims against county and sheriff for alleged systemic violations of their rights as persons with "serious mental health needs" were not required to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit when there was "no available administrative remedies" that the plaintiffs could have used for relief. Shook v. Bd. of County Commissioners of the County of El Paso, 216 F.R.D. 644 (D. Colo. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoner could not pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that correctional officers assaulted him without provocation and used excessive force against him when success in his claim for damages would imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction for assault and battery and "insolence" arising from the same incident. The prisoner's claims were barred by the principles established in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), since his disciplinary conviction had not been set aside. Denham v. Shroad, No. 02-1821, 56 Fed. Appx. 692 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoner could pursue claims against some nurses for alleged inadequate medical care and retaliation against him for filing of an earlier lawsuit, but not against one nurse against whom he had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies concerning retaliation claim. The prisoner's grievance only had to allege misconduct by the nurses and did not need to plead all the elements of a particular legal theory. Burton v. Jones, No. 01-1078, 321 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
     Summary judgment was improper on prisoner's claim that correctional officers assaulted him when there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether he had exhausted his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Evans v. Jonathan, 253 F. Supp. 2d 505 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
    Prison officials were entitled to amend their response to inmate's lawsuit claiming that correctional employees assaulted him to assert a defense of failure to exhaust available dministrative remedies. While they were aware of the defense earlier, the law was not clear that it applied to the circumstances of this lawsuit prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002), ruling that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a)'s requirement of exhaustion of remedies applies to all prisoners "seeking redress for prison circumstances or occurrences." Livingston v. Piskor, 215 F.R.D. 84 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     While the failure of prison officials to respond in a timely fashion to a prisoner's grievance might show, in some instances, that the prisoner had sufficiently exhausted available administrative remedies, the plaintiff prisoner failed to present evidence that he was "hampered" in this case by an untimely response, so trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit was appropriate. Sergent v. Norris, No. 02-4142, 330 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Inmate who completed only the first step of a multi-step jail grievance procedure failed to satisfy the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, that he exhaust available administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit seeking damages for an allegedly unreasonable body cavity search. Morgan v. Maricopa County, 259 F. Supp. 2d 985 (D. Ariz. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoner was barred from pursuing federal civil rights claim that he was placed in danger when prison officials identified him to the general prison population as a gang member when he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Labounty v. Johnson, 253 F. Supp. 2d 496 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     Because of a factual issue as to whether an inmate actually filed a grievance, and, if so, whether the correctional facility responded to it, the issue of whether he had exhausted available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) could not be decided on a motion to dismiss. Sweet v. Wende Correctional Facility, 253 F. Supp. 2d 492 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).[N/R]
     Kansas prisoner could pursue claim against state for personal injuries he suffered while operating a road grader at a correctional institution and was not required under state law to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit, under applicable state regulation. K.A.R. 44-16-104. Bates v. State of Kansas, No. 88,757, 67 P.2d 168 (Kan. App. 2003). [N/R]
     Federal trial court sets aside jury's award of $1 in nominal damages and $30,000 in punitive damages to female prisoner who sued correctional officer who allegedly engaged in an inappropriate relationship with her, including taking photographs of her and writing her love letters. Plaintiff prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Her participation in the departmental investigation that led to the officer's resignation was not the same as pursuing available grievances on her own behalf, and the fact that money damages, the only thing she sought after his resignation, were not available under the grievance procedure did not render those procedures "unavailable." Hock v. Thipedeau, 245 F. Supp. 2d 451 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     Because the plaintiff was a prisoner when he brought his lawsuit concerning an alleged assault by prison personnel and forced medication, his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies required dismissal of his lawsuit, despite the fact that he had subsequently been released from custody while his lawsuit was pending, federal appeals court rules. Cox v. Mayer, No. 02-5102, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 11554 (6th Cir.). [2003 JB Jul]
     Illinois prison officials failed to prove that plaintiff prisoner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies on his federal civil rights lawsuit asserting that they violated his constitutional rights by failing to ship 99 boxes, containing over 2,800 pounds of his property to California after he was transferred there. Prisoner stated that he did not know, until after his transfer, that the material would not be shipped, and it was "doubtful" that he could use Illinois administrative remedies once he was in a California prison. Prisoner's federal lawsuit was barred, however, by his prior Illinois state court mandamus action seeking to force the shipment of the boxes, in which the state court had rejected his claim. Walker v. Page, No. 00-3990, 59 Fed. Appx. 896 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court rules that prisoner satisfied the "exhaustion of available administrative remedies" requirement sufficiently by alleging that he was unable to timely file an initial grievance because of his broken hand. Appeals court vacates dismissal of prisoner's civil rights lawsuit for damages, based on his broken hand from slip and fall in prison dining area. Days v. Johnson, #02-10064, 322 F.3d. 863 (5th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
     Prisoner could decide, under New York state regulations, not to appeal an adverse administrative decision of his prison grievance, but that decision forfeited his right to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit, under the requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997(e) that available administrative remedies first be exhausted. U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion of remedies requirement applies to all prisoner seeking redress for prison circumstances or occurrences) applies retroactively to claims filed before the ruling. Santos v. Hauck, 242 F. Supp. 2d 257 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     Requirement that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit applies to pretrial detainees. Plaintiff prisoner's lawsuit seeking his release from special housing unit rejected for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Additionally, despite the allegedly non-violent nature of the crime with which the detainee was charged, the government presented evidence asserted to link him in some way to individuals implicated in the attacks of September 11, 2001, raising significant security issues with regard to the conditions of his pre-trial incarceration. United States of America v. Al-Marri, 239 F. Supp. 2d 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
    Prisoner's lawsuit against prison officials for failing to protect him against assault by other inmates should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies despite the fact that he never filed an administrative grievance, when prisoner was told by officials that he had to "wait" until their "investigation" was finished, and he was not informed, months later, that it had ended. Brown v. Croak, No. 01-1207, 312 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
     Prisoner's lawsuit concerning permanent restrictions on his use of the phone should be dismissed when he failed to comply with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, that he exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. Prisoner filed three administrative grievances concerning restrictions on his phone use, but only pursued appeals on two of the grievances. Smeltzer v. Hook, 235 F. Supp. 2d 736 (W.D. Mich. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner complied adequately with the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement when he submitted a grievance concerning his alleged physical mistreatment by correctional officers which was not responded to in any way. Abney v. County of Nassau, 237 F. Supp. 2d 278 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Informal complaints that a prisoner made to the city's inspector general, such as leaving telephone messages concerning his alleged inadequate medical treatment, inadequate heat in the city correctional facility, etc., did not satisfy the legal requirement that he exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit. To allow him to bypass formal administrative procedures "would obviate the purpose for which the procedures were enacted." Berry v. Kerik, 237 F. Supp. 2d 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court rules that prisoner pursuing claims against Louisiana correctional officials and employees for inadequacies in his medical treatment had to exhaust available administrative remedies, despite recent decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court finding the state's prison grievance system unconstitutional in part, since that system nevertheless remained in place. Ferrington v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, #02-30256, 315 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
     Federal prisoner's civil rights claims concerning alleged confiscation of his wheelchair and destruction of his leg braces, along with discontinuation of his physical therapy following transfer to a new facility, were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Prisoner submitted requests for administrative remedies to warden and then sent new requests to Regional Director instead of submitting appeals to the Regional Director, and no appeals were ever made to the Director of National Inmate Appeals. Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b) claims not filed within 6 months of receiving notice of administrative agency denial were time barred. Smith v. U.S., #02-1172, 53 Fed. Appx. 514 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner who bypassed the first two levels of administrative review of his grievances concerning conditions of confinement and declined to submit to their review after the regional prison official at the third level returned his complaint failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The fact that the prisoner believed that pursuing his grievances at the local level would have been futile did not alter the result. Jeanes v. U.S. Depart. of Justice, 231 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
     County sheriff and other jail personnel, in allegedly interfering with a detainee's ability to exhaust administrative remedies on his grievances, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act before proceeding with a federal civil rights lawsuit, might be subject to liability for interfering with the detainee's constitutional right of access to the courts on several claims which were non-frivolous. Complete absence of legal materials at jail prevented detainee of learning of exhaustion requirement or attempting to comply with it, and plaintiff was told his complaints were not subject to grievance procedure. Davis v. Milwaukee County, 225 F. Supp. 2d 967 (E.D. Wis. 2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
     Nebraska Supreme Court, in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated by being celled with another inmate who smoked tobacco, rules that Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement, in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), that inmates exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuits is an affirmative defense, rather than a necessary element of the plaintiff's claim. In reaching this ruling, the court overturned its own prior ruling in Pratt v. Clarke, 258 Neb. 402, 604 N.W.2d 822 (1999). Cole v. Isherwood, No. 8-00-665, 653 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal trial court was required under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) to dismiss, without prejudice, prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit over prison conditions when he had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit but was in the process of doing so when the motion to dismiss was filed. McKinney v. Carey, #01-17436, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Prison Litigation Reform Act's "exhaustion of remedies" requirement applied to a grievance procedure described in an inmate handbook, even when it had not been formally adopted by a state administrative agency and even if the "effectiveness" of the grievance procedure "may have been unclear," federal appeals court rules. Concepcion v. Morton, #01-4345, 306 F.3d 1347 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Feb.]
     Rastafarian prisoner's equal protection challenge against California prison hair length regulation should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies when defendant prison officials failed to establish such a failure to exhaust. Federal appeals court rules that failure to exhaust is a defense, with the burden on the defendants to establish it. Wyatt v. Terhune, #00-16568, 305 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Feb.]
     New York State Department of Corrections (DOCS) was immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a state prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit challenging prison conditions. Claims against prison superintendent and two guards were also dismissed because of failure to prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Miller v. New York State Department of Corrections, 217 F. Supp. 2d 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).[N/R]
     Prisoner did not demonstrate exhaustion of remedies in his federal civil rights claim over alleged inadequate medical treatment when his complaint did not involve any named defendants and no documentation was provided for any of his grievances. Glenn v. Campbell, #01-6063, 40 Fed. Appx. 21 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner must show that he exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison conditions, rather than while his lawsuit is pending in court. Failure to do so requires dismissal of the complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Mack v. DeWitt, No. 01-4163, 40 Fed. Appx. 36 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner did not adequately exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit when prison officials failed to respond to many of his grievances and did respond to one of his grievances, since prisoner could have filed a timely appeal but failed to do so. The doctrine of "substantial compliance" did not apply to the prisoner's exhaustion requirement when his cause of action accrued after the effective date of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Lewis v. Washington, No. 00-2017, 300 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner was required to exhaust available administrative remedies before beginning his federal civil rights lawsuit over officers' alleged failure to protect him from assault by other prisoners. Dismissal of prisoner's lawsuit would be without prejudice, allowing him to exhaust remedies and then refile the lawsuit, when prisoner filed his lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear, in its decision in Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983 (2002) that the remedies exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) "applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involved general circumstances or particular episodes." Peoples v. Beldock, 212 F. Supp. 2d 141 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner who failed to comply with a grievance procedure established by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections could not proceed with his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that correctional officers assaulted him. Plaintiff was required, under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. Foster v. Murphy, 211 F. Supp. 2d 354 (D. Mass. 2002). [N/R]
     County jail inmate who was transferred to a state facility before he commenced his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that correctional officers assaulted him had no available administrative remedies to exhaust before filing suit, since the county jail's administrative remedies were only available to facility residents. Ligon v. Doherty, 208 F. Supp. 2d 384 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 JB Nov]
     Prisoner's failure to file a timely appeal from a disciplinary board's decision denying his grievance was a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, requiring dismissal of his lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). African-American bi-sexual prisoner could not pursue claim that he was treated differently than white heterosexual prisoner involved in the same incident of alleged sexual conduct. Thomas v. Doyle, #01-1773, 39 Fed. Appx. 373 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner failed to completely exhaust available administration remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that officers used excessive force against him and that a prison doctor subsequently denied him medical care for resulting injuries. Rodriguez v. Hahn, 209 F. Supp. 2d 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     HIV-positive prisoner who allegedly suffered from AIDS failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies under New York state law as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming inadequate medical care. Dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice was required when prisoner submitted an initial grievance, but took no additional steps when he received no response. Reyes v. Punzal, 206 F. Supp. 2d 431 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court holds that prisoner's claims over his alleged denial of medication for high blood pressure, headaches, and a heart condition were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The burden was on the prisoner to specifically show, for each claim, the specific steps he had taken to pursue such remedies, and the result. Smith v. Shelby County, #01-59399, 34 Fed. Appx. 188 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Oct]
     Plaintiff inmates' failure to demonstrate that they had exhausted their available administrative remedies prior to bringing their federal civil rights case over prison conditions did not deprive the federal court of the jurisdiction to consider their case. A dismissal of the inmates' appeal of the dismissal of their complaint on the basis that a notice of appeal only had the signature of one of the seven inmate plaintiffs was improper, as the signature requirement was also not jurisdictional. Casanova v. DuBois, #99-1838, 289 F.3d 142 (1st Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     The fact that a former inmate was no longer a prisoner when he appealed the dismissal of his federal civil rights lawsuit for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies was irrelevant--the dismissal was proper because he was still a prisoner when he initially brought the lawsuit, and the facts showed that he failed to pursue his grievances through every available administrative route. Dixon v. Page, #01-1973, 291 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Sep]
     Prisoner's initiation of an "informal" grievance concerning his alleged wrongful transfer from one facility to another was insufficient to meet his burden of exhausting available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit when he did not complete the formal grievance procedure, but instead signed a form indicating that he was satisfied with the outcome of the informal process. Williams v. Jefferson County Circuit Court Clerk, #01-5885, 33 Fed. Appx. 763 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Inmate's failure to pursue a grievance against a particular prison official for allegedly filing a retaliatory report against him because of the prisoner's complaints about other officials results in a requirement that his federal civil rights claim against that official must be dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Richardson v. Hillman, 201 F. Supp. 2d 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983 (2002), ruling that claims of every sort relating to prison life--including claims for excessive force against an individual inmate--must satisfy the exhaustion of remedies requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, applies retroactively to a case in which the complained of incident occurred before Porter was decided. Hemphill v. New York, 198 F. Supp. 22d 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Arkansas prisoner with asthma and "painful knot" in his side adequately stated claims for deliberate indifference to his medical problems by prison farm doctor and nurse, based on alleged denials of treatment, and stated claim against warden and state corrections director for "abdication of policy-making and oversight" responsibilities. Appeals court also finds prisoner adequately exhausted his available administrative remedies. Leach v. Norris, #01-3315, 34 Fed. Appx. 510 (8th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
     Prisoner adequately exhausted his available administrative remedies on his claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit when he received a favorable result on his grievance, even though he did not take his claim to the highest level possible. Prisoner was not required to appeal a favorable grievance decision, and a further appeal would not have given him any additional relief. Brady v. Attygala, 196 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (C.D. Cal. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
     Prisoner's complaint that failure of prison officials to provide him with a kosher food diet violated his right to exercise his religion should be dismissed without prejudice because of his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies provided under Tennessee state law. Watler v. Campbell, #01-5646, 33 Fed. Appx. 764 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Inmate's alleged pursuit of his grievance through informal channels under New York law was relevant to the issue of whether he had exhausted available administrative remedies before pursuing his federal lawsuit. Federal trial court allows prisoner to proceed with conducting discovery concerning his informal grievance. Perez v. Blot, 195 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner was required to pursue a grievance with the prison's chief medical officer before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit over the alleged denial of necessary medical treatment even if, as he claimed, it would have been futile to do so. The requirement of exhaustion of available administrative remedies in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) does not contain a futility exception. Farrell v. Addison, #01-7094, 01-7127, 34 Fed. Appx. 650 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     New Jersey state prison inmates who alleged racial discrimination and conspiracy to violate their rights on the basis of race following the fatal stabbing of a correctional officer by a inmate could pursue their federal civil rights lawsuit without pursuing supposed remedies described in state prison's inmate handbook. Court finds that grievance procedures described were not sufficiently clear and that therefore no available administrative remedies existed for inmates to exhaust before filing suit. In Re Bayside Prison Litigation, No. 97-5127, 190 F. Supp. 22d 755 (D.N.J. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]    
     Prisoner did not show that correctional facility's institutional inspector violated his right to access to the courts by refusing to issue him grievance forms which he could use to challenge his conditions of confinement when prisoner did not claim that there was no other source for the forms or that he had made other attempts to pursue his grievance. Watley v. Goodman, #01-3860, 31 Fed. Appx. 169 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
     Prisoner who claimed correctional officers severely beat him was required to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit despite the fact that they could not lead to monetary awards. Actions including the disciplining of the officers or the transfer of the prisoner to another facility where he would not be under their supervision were possible responses to an administrative complaint, and the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) requires a prisoner to exhaust any procedure that has authority to take "some action" in response to his complaint. Larkin v. Galloway, #00-1414, 266 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     Prisoner who claimed that correctional officials had subjected him to a substantial risk of being attacked and sodomized by other prisoners by placing him in a particular prison unit without adequate security and protection had to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing suit in federal court. Exhaustion requirement was intended to curtail frivolous prisoner litigation, and by 1995, prisoners filed more than 25% of the cases filed in federal trial courts, which Congress concluded included more frivolous lawsuits than suits pursued by "any other class of persons." Torres v. Alvarado, 143 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Puerto Rico 2001). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit claiming he was subjected to a hot prison cell with poor ventilation which caused respiratory distress was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. While the prisoner did file and pursue an administrative grievance, he did not show that he ever appealed the denial of the grievance. Lyons-Bey v. Curtis, #01-1574, 30 Federal Appendix 376 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jun]
     The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a court, before analyzing whether a prisoner has stated a federal civil rights claim under the Eighth Amendment, to first assess whether the plaintiff has exhausted available administrative remedies. Prisoner's claims were therefore dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to do so. Serrano v. Alvarado, 169 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D. Puerto Rico 2001). [N/R]
     A prisoner's federal civil rights claim does not accrue until  he has exhausted available administrative remedies. Prisoner must specifically plead such exhaustion in their complaint. Exhaustion requirement applies whether the claim is pursued in federal or state court. Martin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 00CA37, 749 N.E.2d 787 (Ohio App. 2001). [2002 JB May]
     Since the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, courts may no longer examine available grievance procedures to determine whether they would serve the inmate's intended purpose. State of Florida has adopted a rule giving prisoners a right to file a grievance regarding reprisals against inmates who have filed complaints, and prisoner could not pursue a lawsuit without first pursuing such a grievance. Hollingsworth v. Brown, No. 1D00-3126, 788 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. App. 2001). [2002 JB May]
     A prisoner's assertion that pursuing available administrative remedies would be futile did not excuse his failure to pursue prison grievance procedures before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Freytes v. Laboy, 143 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D. Puerto Rico). [N/R]
     Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rules that "exhaustion of remedies" requirement of Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to all lawsuits by inmates about prison life, including those involving particular incidents, such as an allegation of excessive use of force by a correctional officer, as well as those that involve general circumstances or conditions. Porter v. Nussle, 2002 U.S. Lexis 1373. [2002 JB Apr]
     Prison Litigation Reform Act's provisions requiring the exhaustion of available administrative remedies before proceeding with a lawsuit did not apply to prisoner's New York state law negligence claim based on the alleged failure of correctional officers and prison officials to protect him from assaults by other inmates. Nunez v. Goord, 172 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
     Prisoner's lawsuit, over incident which occurred prior to the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, with its exhaustion of remedies requirement, but which was filed after the enactment of the law, was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies by filing a written complaint with the prison. McCoy v. Gilbert, No. 00-1354, 270 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
     Prisoner may have sufficiently exhausted "available" administrative remedies if, as he claimed, prison officials failed to comply with his requests to be furnished with grievance forms. Miller v. Norris, #00-1053, 247 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     Further proceedings ordered to determine whether prisoner exhausted available administrative remedies in lawsuit alleging denial of his right to practice his Jewish religion. Plaintiff alleged that prison officials prevented him from pursuing administrative remedies further by either stating or implying that no further avenues were available for him. Lyon v. Krol, #00-3283, 270 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
    Prisoner had to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that he was subjected to repeated harassment by prison officials in retaliation for his success in winning a prior lawsuit against the prison health services director for refusing to authorize his liver transplant. Johnson v. Litscher, #00-2978, 260 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Feb]
     Prisoner sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies for his grievances claiming that he had been sprayed with pesticides in a prison housing unit, even though he had not specifically named the defendants in his lawsuit in his grievances. The grievances alleged the relevant factual circumstances, and requested the identities of the individuals directly responsible for the spraying. Irvin v. Zamora, No. 99CV2350, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (S.D. Cal. 2001). [2002 JB Feb]
     Court would dismiss all of prisoner's federal civil rights claims when he had exhausted his available administrative remedies on some, but not all, of his claims. Rivera v. Whitman, No. Civ. A.99-544, 161 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D.N.J. 2001). [N/R]
     Prisoner could not pursue civil rights lawsuit over alleged inadequate medical treatment when he failed to ever submit a grievance under an available four stage prison administrative process. Massey v. Helman, #00-1478, 259 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
    Prisoner's claim that he was assaulted by officers in retaliation for his participation in a prison disturbance was subject to the exhaustion of remedies provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and was properly dismissed when he failed to pursue administrative grievance. The purpose of this requirement was not only to block frivolous lawsuits, but also to permit prison officials to attempt to first address complaints internally. Smith v. Zachary, #99-4084, 255 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
    Prisoner had to exhaust available administrative grievances before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison nurse's alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs. "Substantial" compliance with the exhaustion of remedies requirement was not enough. Wright v. Hollingsworth, No. 99-40063, 260 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
    297:135 Prisoner was required to exhaust administrative remedies before proceeding with lawsuit challenging prison drug testing policies, which constituted a claim about "prison conditions," but he was not required to do so on claims that prison officials took retaliatory disciplinary actions against him individually. Giano v. Goord, #98-2619, 250 F.3d 146 (2nd Cir. 2001).
    294:88 Prisoner did not need to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit for particular, individualized instance of alleged retaliation by correctional officer; inmate claimed officer filed disciplinary charges against him because of his complaints to prison authorities about the officer's alleged misconduct. Lawrence v. Goord, No. 99-0202, 238 F.3d 182 (2nd Cir. 2001).
    296:115 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, even when they are seeking only money damages and money damages may not be obtained through the administrative grievance process. Booth v. Churner, #99-1964, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001).
    296:120 Arkansas prisoner's lawsuit was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies; even if prisoner submitted evidence to the appeals court that he may have exhausted remedies on one of his claims, he never showed that to the trial court, and the burden to do so was his. McAlphin v. Morgan, #99-4112, 216 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2000).
    292:59 UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether prisoner who claimed that correctional officers used excessive force against him was required to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit for damages, even if money damages could not be awarded in the administrative proceeding. Booth v. Churner, Co., #97-7487 & 97-7488, 206 F.3d 289 (3rd Cir.), reported in Jail & Prisoner Law Bulletin, No. 287, p. 168 (Nov. 2000), cert. granted, No. 00-289, 121 S. Ct. 377 (2000).
    291:38 Former prisoner, who sued over delay in treatment of cheek abscess, was not a "prisoner" required to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit. Burton v. City of Philadelphia, 121 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
    EDITOR'S NOTE: Two federal courts of appeals, facing the issue of released prisoners, both held that plaintiffs who file prison condition lawsuits after their release from custody are not "prisoners" required to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA. Page v. Torrey, 98-56526, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000); Greig v. Goord, 97-9340, 169 F.3d 165 (2nd Cir. 1999).
    296:121 Prisoner adequately exhausted administrative remedies on his excessive force claim against officers when he attempted to file his grievance, but it was not processed; the merits of his claim were later examined and rejected by the highest official in the state corrections department. Camp v. Brennan, No. 99-3887, 219 F.3d 279 (3rd Cir. 2000).
    289:10 Federal appeals court rules that provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit does not apply to a prisoner's claim that correctional officers physically assaulted him without any lawful justification. Nussle v. Willette, No. 99-0387, 224 F.3d 95 (2nd Cir. 2000).
    289:9 Prisoner's failure to name the warden or correctional commissioner in his administrative grievances concerning alleged denial of prescribed treatment for his hernia did not constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies so as to require dismissal of his subsequent federal civil rights lawsuit against them. Brown v. Sikes, No. 98- 08727, 212 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2000).
    [N/R] Some prisoners asserting Eighth Amendment claims substantially complied with the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act prior to filing their lawsuit, but some did not. Curry v. Scott, No. 99-3474, 249 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2000). [N/R] Prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not deprive federal court of jurisdiction; prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, however, so trial court should have dismissed his claims. Chelette v. Harris, No. 99-1759, 229 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2000).
    [N/R] Prisoner's excessive-use-of-force claim was subject to the exhaustion of remedies provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act; section of the Act containing the exhaustion requirements was not unconstitutionally vague. No. 99-8055, 223 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2000).
    [N/R] Prisoners were required to exhaust administrative remedies on their excessive force claims even when they could not receive money damages through administrative proceedings. Kunckles El v. Toombs, No. 98- 2181, 215 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2000).
    286:154 Federal appeals court rules that Kansas state prisoner's lawsuit over his private prison industry work assignment could proceed, at least insofar as it sought money damages, despite failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, when administrative remedies did not provide for awards of money. Miller v. Menghini, #99-3401, 213 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000).
    287:168 Prisoner who claimed that correctional officers used excessive force against him was required to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit for damages, even if money damages could not be awarded in the administrative proceeding. Booth v. Churner, Co., #97-7487 & 97-7488, 206 F.3d 289 (3rd Cir. 2000).
    EDITOR'S NOTE: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals had previously reached the same result in a case involving a Bivens (direct lawsuit under a constitutional provision, rather than a statute, such as 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, applicable only to those acting under state law) federal civil rights lawsuit against federal correctional officials. Nyhuis v. Reno, #98-3543, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2000).
    283:106 Prisoner's claim that his property had been lost or destroyed during a prison riot could not be the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit when he failed to pursue an available administrative appeal from the denial of his administrative grievance over the items. Feliciano v. Servicios Correccionales, 79 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D. Puerto Rico 2000).
    281:70 Persons civilly committed as sexually violent predators under California statute are not "prisoners" for purposes of Prison Litigation Reform Act; Act's exhaustion of remedies and financial reporting requirements, therefore, do not apply to them. Page v. Torrey, No. 98- 56526, 98-56591, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000).
    281:71 Texas prisoner pursuing only money damages for alleged failure to provide medical treatment for a ruptured eardrum did not need to exhaust administrative remedies when state administrative remedies did not allow for awards of money; appeals court panel urges full Fifth Circuit federal appeals court to reconsider this rule, however. Wright v. Hollingsworth, No. 99-40063,201 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2000).
    277:5 Prisoner who failed to exhaust available prison grievance procedures could not pursue federal civil rights lawsuit for damages over correctional officer's alleged failure to protect him from assault by another prisoner; the fact that the grievance procedure did not provide a money damages remedy did not alter the result. Langford v. Couch, 50 F. Supp. 2d 544 (E.D.Va. 1999).
    277:10 EDITOR'S NOTE: See Williams v. Norris, No. 99-1743, 176 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999). (Rastafarian prisoner's lawsuit against prison rule prohibiting him from wearing his hair in "dreadlocks" was improperly dismissed because prisoner complied with Prison Litigation Reform Act's "exhaustion of administrative remedies" requirement, since his grievance had been denied by the Warden and the Assistant Director of the state Department of Corrections at the time the court acted).
    278:25 Exhaustion of remedies requirement of Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply retroactively to bar lawsuit already pending; federal appeals court reinstates prisoner's lawsuit complaining that officials prevented him from meeting with prison chaplain. Salahuddin v. Mead, #97-2522, 174 F.3d 271 (2nd Cir. 1999).
    278:28 Failure to adequately supervise jail guards to prevent sexual harassment of female prisoners results in civil rights liability for District of Columbia; plaintiff prisoner asserted that she and others were forced to participate in "strip-shows" and "exotic" dancing for guards; "exhaustion of remedies" provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply. Newby v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 1999).
    279:41 Prison Litigation Reform Act did not require California prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing his federal civil rights lawsuit for damages over alleged misconduct, including assault, by prison guard; grievance process did not have any available remedy which could have granted him the damages he sought in the lawsuit. Rumbles v. Hill, No. 98-16794, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999).
    282:88 Prisoner was required to pursue available administrative remedies over alleged failure to protect him against rape by a fellow prisoner even though the damages he was seeking in a federal civil rights lawsuit were not available in the administrative process; appeals court finds, however, that prisoner "substantially complied" with exhaustion requirement. Wyatt v. Leonard, No. 98-4161, 193 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 1999).
    283:107 Prisoner's lawsuit alleging that he was assaulted by a corrections officer constituted a claim concerning "prison conditions," requiring him to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing; since he did not do so, the suit was properly dismissed. Freeman v. Francis, #98-4288, 196 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1999).
    284:123 Prisoner's claim that requiring him to keep his cell windows closed for three days and nights was cruel and unusual punishment did not allege a physical injury as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act or a sufficient deprivation to be an Eighth Amendment violation; state negligence claim was barred for failure to comply with notice of claim requirement. Sarro v. Essex County Correctional Facility, 84 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 2000).
    284:124 Georgia prisoner's claim that a correctional employee sexually abused him was subject to dismissal when he failed to exhaust available administrative grievance procedures before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit. Dillard v. Jones, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2000).
    285:135 Wisconsin appeals court rules that a state notice of claim statute was not an "administrative remedy" that a plaintiff prisoner was required to "exhaust" before proceeding with his federal civil rights lawsuit, filed in state
    court, challenging the exclusion of all material containing nudity or pornography from state prisons. Ledford, State Ex Rel., v. Cir Ct. for Dane County, No. 99-0939-W, 599 N.W.2d 45 (Wis. App. 1999).
    285:136 Federal appeals court upholds jury award totaling $83,250 against a correctional officer who broke a prisoner's nose while beating him in his cell and against fellow officer who was "deliberately indifferent" to prisoner's safety. Wolff v. Moore, No. 96-4080, 199 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 1999).
    287:164 One-year statute of limitations for bringing a federal civil rights lawsuit in Louisiana was extended during the time the prisoner was pursuing his available administrative remedies, as he was legally required to do under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; plaintiff stated a claim for deliberate indifference to treatment of his broken jaw. Harris v. Hegmann, No. 98-30617, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999).
    [N/R] Inmate did not fail to exhaust administrative remedies when he failed to sign and date prison grievance form he submitted, or by failing to appeal denial of his grievance when he was told that an appeal was precluded. Miller v. Tanner, No. 98-9153, 196 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 1999).
    275:170 Texas prisoner was deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies when he properly filed grievance, despite the fact that prison system did not address some of his arguments in its response to his grievance; lawsuit over alleged failure to protect him from assault by another prisoner could proceed. Powe v. Ennis, #98-40234, 177 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999).
    268:55 Prisoner was required to exhaust available administrative remedies before he could pursue lawsuit for money damages over officer's alleged assault on him; unavailability of money damages as a remedy in administrative proceedings did not alter result. Moore v. Smith, 18 F.Supp.2d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 1998).
    » Editor's Note: In the following cases, courts have held that when a prisoner sues for monetary damages, the prisoner does not have to exhaust his administrative remedies because monetary damages are not "available" under prison grievance procedures: Garrett v. Hawk, #96- 1429, 127 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 1997); Lunsford v. Jumao- As, #96-56503, 155 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 1998); Hollimon v. DeTella, 6 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Jackson v. DeTella, 998 F.Supp. 901 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Sanders v. Elyea, 1998 WL 67615 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 1998); Russo v. Palmer, 990 F.Supp. 1047 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Polite v. Barbarin, 1998 WL 146687 (S.D.N.Y. March 25, 1998) (unpublished).
    270:89 Prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative grievance remedies for his claim that correctional officials did not protect him from attack by another prisoner required dismissal of federal civil rights lawsuit; failure to protect claim was a claim concerning prison conditions. Soto v. Elston, 993 F.Supp. 163 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
    271:103 Prisoner who claimed that he suffered only emotional injury (and no physical injury) when correctional officer allegedly told others that he was "dying of HIV" could not pursue federal civil rights claim; section of Prison Litigation Reform Act barring such suits did not violate equal protection or his right of access to the courts. Davis v. District of Columbia, No. 97-7043, 158 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
    274:150 Prisoner's exhaustion of administrative remedies after filing federal civil rights lawsuit over prison work assignment did not excuse his failure to do so prior to filing lawsuit, as required by Prison Litigation Reform Act. Underwood v. Wilson, #97-40536, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998).
    » Editor's Note: See also Harris v. Gunderman, 30 F.Supp.2d 664 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), ruling that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a prisoner claiming that correctional officers severely beat him, when the plaintiff prisoner failed to ever file an available administrative grievance concerning the alleged incident.
    [N/R] Provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply retroactively and plaintiff prisoner had "substantially" complied with exhaustion of remedies requirement. Bishop v. Lewis, #95-15035, 155 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1998).
    [N/R] Prisoner did not have to exhaust administrative remedies before proceeding with federal civil rights lawsuit alleging prison officials failed to protection him from assault by another prisoner, since internal grievance proceeding would not have compensated him for his injuries. Freeman v. Godinez, 996 F.Supp. 822 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
    261:136 Lawsuit alleging that correctional officers themselves assaulted prisoner was not a lawsuit over "prison conditions" requiring the exhaustion of available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, as lawsuit alleging officers failed to protect prisoner from assault by other inmates would have been. Rodriguez v. Berbary, 992 F.Supp. 592 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). » Editor's Note: In the following cases, prisoners were required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuits: Tafoya v. Simmons, 116 F.3d 489 (Table) (10th Cir. 1997) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies regardless of whether or not the administrative action is futile); Morgan v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 976 F.Supp. 892 (D. Ariz. 1997) (inmate's claim that prisoner officials threatened his safety and allowed other inmates to assault him considered a prison condition and therefore must be grieved); Midgette v. Doe, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15918, 1997 WL 634280 (S.D.N.Y.) (inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies in a failure to protect claim); Mitchell v. Gomez, 1997 WL 305273, No. C96-3939 FMS, (N.D. Cal. June 2, 1997) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies for a claim that prison guards incited other inmates to assault him); McCoy v. Scott, 1997 WL 414185, No. C 97-0472 TEH(PR), (N.D. Cal. July 15, 1997) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies for a claim that prison officials ignored his concerns about problems with his cellmate).
   261:137 Prisoner's federal lawsuit about alleged delay in cataract surgery on his eye dismissed when he could not show that he pursued all administrative appeals available to him in the California correctional system. Alexandroai v. Calif. Dept. of Corrections, 985 F.Supp. 968 (S.D. Cal. 1997).
   [N/R] Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison officials retaliated against him after he filed a lawsuit against another prison official was properly dismissed due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 1997).
    238:147 Federal Prison Litigation Reform Act becomes law, makes numerous changes in prison litigation, including scope of injunctive orders, standards for termination of injunctive orders, amount of attorneys' fees, standard for prisoner release orders in overcrowding cases, prisoner payment of filing fees and court costs, barring inmates who repetitively file frivolous suits from further filings, no awards for mental/emotional distress in the absence of physical injury, and revocation of federal prisoner's good time credits if they file malicious lawsuits or testify falsely, among other highlights.

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu