Opinion
Case No. 00-71151.
June 27, 2000.
OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Samuel D. Hill's (hereinafter `plaintiff') complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court finds the facts and the legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Accordingly, the motion before this Court will be disposed of upon the briefs that the parties have submitted. See E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in Gratiot County, Michigan. His complaint states claims for violations of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that his decision not to participate in a drug sting operation within the prison system resulted in assault, harassment, and other physical, mental, and emotional abuses. Plaintiff filed numerous grievances that were investigated internally and by the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
Defendants claim that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies through Step 3 of the grievance procedure under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 878 (1999). Plaintiff alleges that he has "substantially complied" with the exhaustion requirement.
A motion brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. In evaluating the motion, this Court "[m]ust construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept as true all of the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations, and determine whether the plaintiff can prove no set of facts supporting his claims that would entitle him to relief." Ludwig v. Board of Trustees of Ferris State University, 123 F.3d 404, 408 (6th Cir. 1997). However, a court need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss when no set of facts exists which would allow the plaintiff to recover. Carter by Carter v. Cornwall, 983 F.2d 52, 54 (6th Cir. 1993).
III. ANALYSIS
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(1) provides that "no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 until all administrative remedies are exhausted." Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 833 (1998). In Brown, the court of appeals stated that "a prisoner must plead his claims with specificity and show that they have been exhausted by attaching a copy of the applicable administrative dispositions to the complaint or, in the absence of written documentation, describe with specificity the administrative proceeding and its outcome." Id. In the absence of particularized averments concerning exhaustion showing the nature of the administrative proceeding and its outcome, the action must be dismissed under § 1997e. Id.
In Knuckles v. Toombs, 2000 WL 767833, * 1 (6th Cir. 2000), the plaintiffs stated in their complaint that certain claims had been exhausted without providing the documentation or other details required by Brown. The court stated that "[t]here are none of the particularized averments necessary for the district court to determine what, if any, claims have been exhausted or what has been done in an attempt to exhaust the claims." Id. Therefore, the court of appeals held that the complaint was properly dismissed.
Similarly, in this case, plaintiff's complaint has not provided the Court with any of the particularized averments necessary for the district court to determine what, if any, claims have been exhausted. Although plaintiff states that he did not receive an response to his grievances, he has not submitted any documentation that he forwarded his grievances to the next step or appealed his grievances under the Michigan Department of Correction's grievance procedures. Therefore, plaintiff has not "completely exhausted" his administrative remedies. Wolff v. Moore, 199 F.3d 324, 327-29 (6th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(1).
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.