Summary
dismissing complaint where plaintiff's grievance failed to refer to any of the defendants named in his complaint
Summary of this case from Foreman v. GoordOpinion
02 Civ. 2148 (JSM).
June 23, 2003.
AMENDED OPINION
Plaintiff, a prisoner in state custody, brings this action alleging that various prison officials subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by their indifference to his serious medical needs. The Defendants move to dismiss on two grounds: 1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and 2) the medical complaints cited by Plaintiffs do not constitute serious medical needs.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under Section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). As Judge Buchwald explained inByas v. New York, No. 99 Civ. 1673, 2002 WL 1586963, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 17, 2002):
`[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong' (quoting Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992 (2002)). . . . Failure to exhaust prior to bringing suit will result in dismissal, regardless of a plaintiff's later efforts to exhaust. (citing Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116, 117-118 (2d Cir. 2001)).Byas, 2002 WL 1586963, at *2.
Thus, even if a plaintiff files a valid grievance, he must still exhaust all appeals before filing suit.
Here Plaintiff did not file a grievance with respect to the conduct of any of the Defendants named in this case. Plaintiff did file one grievance with respect to one of the medical claims asserted here in which he asked for new medical footwear and to be seen by an outside specialist, but this grievance, although appealed through all requisite avenues, did not refer to any of the Defendants named in the complaint. This grievance is, therefore, irrelevant to the complaint currently before this Court. Thus, even that claim must be dismissed. Sulton v. Grenier, No. 00 cv. 0727, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17887, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2000); Petit v. Bender, No. 99 cv. 0969, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3536, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. March 20, 2000).
Since Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies the complaint must be dismissed. Therefore, the Court need not reach the question whether Plaintiff's medical conditions constituted serious medical needs.
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed.