Opinion
5:23-CV-00063-TES-CHW
12-05-2023
DEANTE GHOLSTON, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner TYRONE OLIVER, Defendant.
PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 BEFORE THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES H. WEIGLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14), in which Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. For the reasons explained below, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Lead Kitchen Steward Fears and Commissioner Timothy Ward which contained allegations that could give rise to claims arising under § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's complaint was screened for frivolity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and his claims against Defendant Fears were dismissed without prejudice because of Plaintiff's transfer to another prison, while the claims against Defendant Ward were allowed to proceed for further factual development. (Doc. 9). Defendant Ward filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on July 21, 2023. (Doc. 14). On July 24, 2023, current Commissioner Tyrone Oliver was substituted as the proper defendant in this action rather than former Commissioner Timothy Ward. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff responded to the Defendant's motion on August 7, 2023, and Defendant Oliver replied on August 28, 2023. (Docs. 16; 18).
RELEVANT FACTS
Plaintiff's claims arise from his incarceration in the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia. (Doc. 1 at 7). Plaintiff claims he did not receive a proper diet in the SM U.Specifically, he alleges that his meals were nutritionally inadequate and that he was served “spoiled food, uncooked food, smelly food, old food, cold food that is to be hot, [and] inadequate portions.” (Id. at 8). Plaintiff also claims that the “kitchen is unsanitary and [the] food is unclean” at the SMU. (Id.) Plaintiff does not clearly state his religious beliefs but claims that his meals did not meet his religious requirements because the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC”) does not serve halal meat and prepares food in ways that result in cross-contamination between halal meals and non-halal meals, such as using the same appliances, utensils, storage bins, and other kitchen tools for both types of meals. (Id.) Plaintiff filed the present complaint on February 9, 2023. (Doc. 1).
STANDARDS
A complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not include “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The factual allegations in a complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and cannot “merely create[] a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (first alteration in original). In other words, the complaint must allege enough facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” supporting a claim. Id. at 556. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The Exhaustion Requirement
The PLRA mandates that prisoners exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing an action with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal law. Exhaustion in this context means proper exhaustion: prisoners must “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in a federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006). The exhaustion requirement is “designed to eliminate unwarranted federal-court interference with the administration of prisons” by “seek[ing] to afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.” Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1085 (11th Cir. 2008).
When a grievance procedure is provided for prisoners, “an inmate alleging harm suffered from prison conditions must file a grievance and exhaust the remedies available under that procedure before pursuing a § 1983 lawsuit.” Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207 (11th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). “To exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with the PLRA, prisoners must properly take each step within the administrative process. If their initial grievance is denied, prisoners must then file a timely appeal.” Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1378 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006).
The Eleventh Circuit's Turner opinion establishes a two-step process for reviewing motions to dismiss based on a prisoner's asserted failure to exhaust. A reviewing Court first:
[L]ooks to the factual allegations in the defendant's motion to dismiss and those in the plaintiff's response, and if they conflict, takes the plaintiff's version of the facts as true. If, in that light, the defendant is entitled to have the complaint dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it must be dismissed.Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082-83.
Second, if the Complaint is not dismissed under step one, the Court:
[P]roceeds to make specific findings in order to resolve the disputed factual issues related to exhaustion.... Once the court makes findings on the disputed issues of fact, it then decides whether under those findings the prisoner has exhausted his available administrative remedies.
Id. The Grievance Procedure
The grievance procedure applicable in this case is set by the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC) Standard Operating Procedure No. 227.02. (Doc. 14-3). Under that procedure, prisoners must follow a two-step process by first filing an “original grievance” within 10 days of the grievable issue. (Id. at 9). Prisoners may file outside of the 10-day window if they show good cause. (Id.). The original grievance is then screened by prison staff, and typically either rejected or accepted for processing. (Id. at 10). The grievance procedure further provides that a response of some kind is due within 40 days of the date of a grievance's submission, with the possibility of a 10-day extension on written notice. (Id. at 12). On expiration of the response period or on the prisoner's receipt of a response, the prisoner must proceed to step two by filing a “central office appeal” within seven days. (Id. at 15-16). The grievance procedure then contemplates a 120-day period in which the Commissioner may give a response. (Id. at 16). The grievance policy itself does not list any specific detail required for a grievance. See generally (Id.)
ANALYSIS
When determining whether a prisoner has properly exhausted his administrative remedies before bringing his suit, “district courts look to the factual allegations in the motion to dismiss and those in the prisoner's response and accept the prisoner's view of the facts as true.” Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Turner, 541 F.3d at 1081). If the factual allegations made by the prisoner show a failure to exhaust, the motion to dismiss should be granted. Id.
Plaintiff's factual allegations show that he failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. Plaintiff filed the present complaint on February 9, 2023. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has submitted eleven grievances since 2022, the year that the current Alternative Meal Plan became available at the Special Management Unit. Of those eleven grievances, only one relates to the quality of the vegan/Kosher food trays and the lack of halal food. This grievance, Grievance No. 348595, was filed six days before Plaintiff's complaint was filed and several days after Plaintiff executed and dated his complaint form. (See Docs. 14-6; 1.) Accordingly, Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
Plaintiff does not dispute that Grievance No. 348595 was not exhausted before he filed suit, but he argues that two of his earlier grievances satisfy the exhaustion requirements for his lawsuit. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Grievance No. 317832, which was submitted on October 26, 2020, and Grievance No. 302630, which was submitted on January 16, 2020, relate to his present claims and were properly exhausted. (Docs. 16 at 1; 18-1; 18-2). Plaintiff claims that he filed the more recent grievance cited by Defendant, Grievance No. 348595, only to show that the “violation” continues. (Id.)
Grievance No. 317832, filed on October 26, 2020, describes the GDC food program as “unhealthy and unsanitary” and contends that it uses “non-Halal foods and meat . . . and [does] not hav[e] a correct alternative such as correct Kosher foods.” (Doc. 18-1 at 1). Plaintiff argues that the “GDC cannot claim they have a Kosher meal plan” as various unsanitary conditions related to the preparation of food at GDC facilities “render[ the food] non-Kosher.” (Id.) This grievance was denied on December 14, 2020, because the grievance included more than one issue, and per the GDC policy, each grievance must be limited to a single issue. (Id. at 2). The grievance's appeal was denied on June 2, 2021, for the same reason. (Id.)
Grievance No. 317832 cannot satisfy the requirements of exhaustion of administrative remedies because it relates to a different meal plan than the one in place at the GDC when Plaintiff filed his lawsuit about his present allegations. Nothing in Plaintiff's complaint indicates that he meant to base his present claims on the food plan that was in place in October 2020. Additionally, this grievance appears to be inconsistent with Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit. The grievance complains that the GDC does not have “a correct alternative” to halal foods “such as correct Kosher foods,” but Plaintiff now claims that Kosher food is inadequate to meet his dietary needs. (Docs. 18-1 at 1; 16 at 1 (“Kosher do[es] not provide halal food or halal meats.”)) It is impossible for Plaintiff to have grieved a meal plan before it was implemented, and this grievance does not match Plaintiff's present contentions about the meal plan. Plaintiff does not make any argument to overcome these deficiencies. Rather, Plaintiff merely argues “he clearly . . . filed GRV # 317932 as Defendant showed [in the attachment to the Motion to Dismiss] which states [the] date of that GRV was 7/37/2022, the issue was/is ongoing and was within the statute of limitations to file[.]”
In addition to the factual issues with Grievance No. 317832, a grievance that is dismissed because it fails to comport with the procedural requirements for grievances is not properly exhausted. This grievance was denied because it contained more than one issue. (Doc. 18-1). Plaintiff does not dispute this. “The PLRA requires ‘proper exhaustion' that complies with the ‘critical procedural rules' governing the grievance process.” Dimanche v. Brown, 783 F.3d 1204, 1210 (11th Cir. 2015). “The prison's requirements, and not the PLRA, define the boundaries of proper exhaustion[.]” Pavao v. Sims, 679 F.App'x. 819, 823 (2017). The grievance process maintained by the GDC required Plaintiff to submit only one issue per grievance, and Plaintiff failed to follow this procedural requirement. (See Doc. 14-3 at 9). Therefore, Plaintiff did not “properly exhaust” his administrative remedies. See Pavao, 679 F.App'x. at 825; Geter v. Baldwin State Prison, 974 F.3d 1348, 1355 (11th Cir. 2020) (a prisoner whose grievance was rejected for including more than one issue in violation of the grievance procedure “did not comply with the department policy [and] . . . did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies”).
Grievance No. 302630, filed on January 16, 2020, centers on allegations that GDC “foods, products, utensils, equipment, etc. are unsanitary and unhealthy” and “so are the preparation and serving, storage, [and] cleaning of foods/products, all of which is in violation of [Plaintiff's] religious beliefs . . . [and in] complete violation of GDC[‘s] own policy.” (Doc. 18-2 at 1). This grievance was denied on February 6, 2020, based on kitchen staff's reports that “food is prepared under sanitary conditions using suitable equipment and also rinsed, cleaned, and sanitized to prevent cross contamination” according to GDC policy. (Id.) This grievance was not appealed, and therefore, was not properly exhausted. (Doc. 18 at 2 n.2). Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to appeal this grievance.
Plaintiff also argues that regardless of the date that the Alternative Meal Plan was implemented by the GDC, his lawsuit relates to the denial of halal foods and meats, which he argues is a separate issue from kosher or vegan meals. (Doc. 16 at 1). Plaintiff apparently argues that the Alternative Meal Plan only provides kosher or vegan meals, which are not halal food or meats. (Id.) The GDC contends that a Kosher meal plan does meet the requirements for halal dietary restrictions. (See Doc. 18 at 2 n.1). Apparently, Plaintiff agreed with this conclusion at some point, as Grievance No. 317832 states that Kosher food would be an acceptable alternative to halal foods. Whether or not a Kosher substitute for halal food is acceptable, however, the record fails to establish that Plaintiff has fully and properly exhausted his administrative remedies as to any claim about the state of GDC food.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) be GRANTED.
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to these recommendations with the presiding District Judge WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of this Recommendation. The parties may seek an extension of time in which to file written objections, provided a request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline for filing written objections. Any objection is limited in length to TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. Failure to object in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district judge's order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED.