Opinion
NO. 5:11-cv-20 (MTT).
January 28, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff ALVIN HOGAN'S motion entitled "Discussion," which the Clerk's Office has docketed as a motion for reconsideration of this Court's January 19, 2011 order (Tab # 7). In said order, the Court dismissed plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint because plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Plaintiff complains about a prison incident that occurred on January 4, 2011; his complaint was received by this Court two weeks later, on January 18, 2011. Plaintiff stated in his complaint that he "did not get a reply back as of this time" to the grievance he filed. In his motion to reconsider, plaintiff now states that "he did not get a reply. And after defendant make judgment, plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies."
Plaintiff's allegation in his motion to reconsider is not intelligible. In any event, plaintiff must have exhausted his administrative remedies at the time he filed his lawsuit in this Court. See Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006) (the exhaustion requirement under section 1997e(a) is intended to "eliminate unwarranted federal-court interference with the administration of prisons" and allow "corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case"). The complaint indicates that plaintiff had not exhausted at the time he filed his complaint. Before such filing, plaintiff must give officials at the Houston County Detention Center sufficient time to remedy his situation.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to reconsider is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 28th day of January, 2011.