Opinion
Case No. 00-CV-10500-BC
February 8, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
This matter is before the Court on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for full case management. After performing the case screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2), the Magistrate Judge determined that the case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiff has filed objections. Because the Magistrate Judge correctly determined and applied the applicable law to the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation will be adopted, and the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed.
I.
The plaintiff was at one time an inmate in the Ogemaw County Jail, and is currently incarcerated at the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan. Liberally construed, the plaintiff's complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges (1) denial of access to the courts; (2) excessive force/assault by a jail administrator on September 22, 1998; (3) loss of personal property; (4) excessive force/assault by a jail administrator on June 21, 1999; (5) violation of procedural due process through defendants' attempt to implicate the plaintiff in a murder-for-hire scheme and subsequent false report to the Michigan Department of Corrections that plaintiff planned to escape; and (6) failure to investigate the plaintiff's claims of assault. The defendants to this suit include the jail administrator, the county sheriff, the sheriff's department, and the county itself. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, reimbursement for personal items allegedly taken, monetary damages, and removal of the false escape charge from his prison file.
II.
The Magistrate Judge found that with the exception of the plaintiff's claim that he was denied access to the courts, the prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Current federal law requires that before any prisoner may file a civil rights suit challenging prison conditions, he must exhaust all internal administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A prisoner s failure to demonstrate exhaustion of internal remedies is grounds for automatic dismissal. See Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998). The internal administrative procedures must be followed even if they do not offer the precise relief that the prisoner seeks. See Booth v. Churner, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1825 (2001). Dismissal without prejudice is required even if the time for filing the required grievance has expired. See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 417 n. 3 (6th Cir. 1997). A prisoner cannot abandon the grievance process before completion and then claim to have exhausted administrative remedies. Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir. 1999).
To demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative remedies, the Sixth Circuit requires that an inmate attach copies of his filed grievances as proof of exhaustion. Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. Failure to provide this affirmative showing of exhaustion justifies dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. See Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of prisoner-plaintiff's claims for failure to attach proof of exhaustion to his complaint, even though it appeared that the prisoner had in fact exhausted his administrative remedies).
Here, the plaintiff has submitted only two grievance forms with his suit papers. One complains about the status of the law library and requests different transportation arrangements between facilities. The second grievance concerned the plaintiff's complaint that he was being denied access to the library. This second grievance was denied by the administrator and appealed by the plaintiff to the sheriff, who affirmed the jail administrator. Because this appears to be the extent of the administrative remedies available for inmates housed in Ogemaw County Jail, the Court agrees that the plaintiff's access to the courts claim was properly exhausted.
The plaintiff, however, has submitted no affirmative evidence of any grievances regarding his other claims. Instead, he appears to have proceeded directly to federal court without giving jail authorities proper notice of his concerns through the grievance system, contrary to federal law. See Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. Because the PLRA "unambiguously requires exhaustion as a mandatory threshold requirement" in litigation arising from correctional facility conditions, the plaintiff's remaining claims are subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Brown v. Morgan, 209 F.3d 595, 596 (6th Cir. 2000).
Liberally construed, the plaintiff's response to the Recommendation raises two objections. First, the plaintiff references an earlier Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge that rejected the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In that decision, the Magistrate Judge stated that the defendants had failed to advise the Court of the administrative remedies available in the Ogemaw County Jail, and that the plaintiff appeared to have at least attempted to exhaust the remedies of which he was aware. The reasoning used, however, indicates only a hesitance to proceed, not, as plaintiff portrays the finding, that "plaintiff showed that he EXHAUSTED all administrative remedies." Pl.'s Objs. at 1. Furthermore, the Report and Recommendation that the plaintiff references was issued in a different case that the plaintiff previously filed over these same events that alleged additional claims. That matter was dismissed because of improper service. With respect to this case, the plaintiff attached only two grievance forms, both of which were described above. If the plaintiff had other grievances that he wished the Court to consider, he was obligated to attach them to the complaint in this case. See Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2001).
Second, the plaintiff claims in passing that the defendants' misconduct hindered his attempts to exhaust his remedies, and that the defendants sent him "fifty miles away without an [sic] hearing for punishment." Pl.'s Objs. at 2. These conclusory assertions simply do not explain why the plaintiff did not take the fairly simple step of filling out a grievance form and submitting it to the relevant authorities with regard to his other claims.
III.
Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff's claim for loss of personal property is subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Magistrate Judge also recommended that this claim be dismissed with prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
When reviewing prisoner claims, federal courts may dismiss unexhausted claims with prejudice if they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2). Here, the plaintiff simply does not state an actionable claim for deprivation of procedural due process over the removal of his property. The plaintiff's complaint states that his property was taken and returned three hours later with some items damaged and others missing. Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13. As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, however, the plaintiff must demonstrate either (1) that his loss resulted from an established unconstitutional state procedure, or (2) that a "random and unauthorized" act caused his deprivation, and no remedies are otherwise available to compensate him for his loss. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Because the plaintiff has not complained of an established jail policy condoning unconstitutional seizure of inmate property, only the second test can apply. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has already found that Michigan provides sufficient post-deprivation remedies for prisoners in the plaintiff's predicament:
Michigan provides several adequate post-deprivation remedies, including Michigan Court Rule 3.105 that allows an action for claim and deliver, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2920 that provides for a civil action to recover possession of or damages for goods and chattels unlawfully taken or detained, and Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6401, the Michigan Court of Claims Act, which establishes a procedure to compensate for alleged unjustifiable acts of state officials.Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 480 (6th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, no claim for procedural due process is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged theft of the plaintiff's property.
The plaintiff does not object to this particular finding, and the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
IV.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal with prejudice on the plaintiff's claim of denial of access to the courts. In his complaint, the plaintiff claimed that "jail administrators do have a custom or policy to deny inmates their rights to defend or appeal cases" they are charged with and that the sheriff "flat out refuses to allow access to courts by den[y]ing use of the law library." Pl.'s Compl. at ¶¶ 5-6.
The Sixth Circuit has held, however, that complaints about the quality of a prisoner's access to the law library are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless he alleges some actual injury that has resulted from the denial of access, such as a missed court deadline. See Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). The plaintiff alleges no such injury. Accordingly, his complaints regarding law library access fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and must be dismissed. Id; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Again, the plaintiff's objections do not challenge this recommendation.
V.
The plaintiff's claims of denial of access to the courts and of deprivation of personal property fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and therefore must be dismissed. The plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that he exhausted available administrative remedies for the remainder of his claims, which prevents him from pursuing those claims in federal court in a prisoner civil rights action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's claims of denial of access to the courts and deprivation of personal property are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's remaining claims are all DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted.
It is further ORDERED that all remaining motions, including the plaintiff's Motion to Include Successor [dkt #5], Motion for Immediate Review [dkt #12], Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt #38]. Motion for Release of Unnamed Sheriff Deputies [dkt #s 46 and 48], and Motion for Join[d]er of Defendants [dkt #47], and the defendants' Motion to Change Venue [dkt #19] and Motion to Strike [dkt #25], are DENIED AS MOOT.