Opinion
5:23-cv-00019-MTT-CHW
09-28-2023
DANIEL FORD, Plaintiff, v. Warden TRACY JEFFERSON, et al., Defendants.
PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 BEFORE THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER
CHARLES H. WEIGLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, citing Plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 42). Contemporaneous to his response to the motion (Doc. 47), Plaintiff filed a document entitled “supplemental claim” (Doc. 46), wherein he seeks to add “Central State Prison Counselor Hudgins” to this Section 1983 action for failing to record his grievances. The Court interprets this document as a motion to amend Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff's attempt to supplement or amend his complaint is improper because a prison's grievance procedure “does not provide an inmate with a constitutionally protected interest.” Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1177 (11th Cir. 2011). Moreover, “[t]he failure of a State to adopt or adhere to an administrative grievance procedure shall not constitute the basis for an action.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b). Because a failure to file a grievance does not in and of itself give rise to a Section 1983 claim, Plaintiff's attempt to amend his complaint to add a claim against Counselor Hudgins (Doc. 46) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.