Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-CV-74581-DT
December 2, 2003
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I. Introduction
Before the Court is Plaintiff Frank Nali's civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state inmate currently confined at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. Plaintiffs complaint has been reviewed and is now dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
II. Complaint
Plaintiffs complaint alleges that he suffered from multiple deprivations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan. Plaintiffs complaint names nine separate defendants. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief.
III. Discussion
The complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff has failed to prove that he exhausted his administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." This exhaustion requirement applies to cases which were filed on or after April 26, 1996. White v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs complaint was filed on or about November 3, 2003, and the PLRA would therefore apply.
A prisoner filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case involving prison conditions must allege and show that he or she has exhausted all available state administrative remedies. Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998). A prisoner who seeks monetary damages must complete the prison administrative process, even where that process may not offer the prisoner the specific remedy that he or she seeks. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 734 (2001). Therefore, so long as a prison system has an administrative process that will review a prisoner's complaint, even when the prisoner seeks monetary damages, the prisoner must first exhaust his or her prison administrative remedies. Id. The PLRA exhaustion requirement also applies even when the intra-prison administrative process does not offer a remedy for a specific complaint. See Williams v. McGinnis, 192 F. Supp.2d 757, 763 (E.D. Mich. 2002); aff'd 57 Fed. Appx. 662 (6th Cir. 2003). The PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner lawsuits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and regardless of whether the suit alleges excessive force or some other wrong. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Federal courts may enforce the exhaustion requirement sua sponte. Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d at 1104. A prisoner may not amend his or her § 1983 complaint to cure a failure to plead the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 487 (6th Cir. 2002). Therefore, a prisoner's pro se § 1983 action is properly dismissed without prejudice in the absence of any indication in the complaint that the prisoner has properly exhausted his or her state administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d at 1104.
In order to effectuate the language contained in § 1997e(a), a prisoner must plead his or her claims with specificity and show that they have been exhausted by attaching a copy of the applicable dispositions to the complaint, or in the absence of any documentation, describe with specificity the administrative proceeding and its outcome. Knuckles-El v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640, 642 (6th Cir. 2000). In the absence of particularized averments concerning exhaustion which show the nature of the administrative proceeding and its outcome, the action must be dismissed under § 1997e(a). Id.
In this case, plaintiff has neither attached any documentation showing that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the claims that he has alleged, nor has he pleaded with specificity the measures that he has taken to exhaust, or attempt to exhaust his remedies. Plaintiffs complaint has therefore not provided this Court with the particularized averments necessary for the Court to determine if his claims have been exhausted. Thus, plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed. Knuckles-El v. Toombs, 215 F.3d at 642. In particular, plaintiff has failed to allege or prove that he named any of the defendants in any of his grievances. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a copy of his Step I grievance, nor does he indicate that he identified any of the defendants in any Step I grievance. "For a court to find that a prisoner has administratively exhausted a claim against an individual defendant, a prisoner must have alleged mistreatment or misconduct on the part of the defendant at Step I of the grievance process." Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 575 (6th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs failure to name the defendants in his Step I grievance alone would preclude a finding of exhaustion. Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d at 576, fns. 4 5 (claim of retaliation which was initially raised by prisoner in Step n of the grievance process was not administratively exhausted). Additionally, there is no indication that plaintiff named any of the defendants at Steps n or in of the grievance process. A prisoner must pursue all levels of the prison's administrative procedure before he or she can file a complaint in federal court. Smeltzer v. Hook, 235 F. Supp.2d 736, 740 (W.D. Mich. 2002). Without any evidence from plaintiff that he identified any of the defendants in any administrative proceedings or that he had exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to each of these defendants, plaintiff would be unable to establish with particularity that he had exhausted his available administrative remedies against these defendants in order to maintain this complaint against the named defendants. See Gibbs v. Bolden, 151 F. Supp.2d 854, 857 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Summary dismissal is proper, because plaintiff has alleged only in a conclusory fashion, without sufficient documentary support, that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Ziegler v. Michigan, 59 Fed. Appx. 622, 624 (6th Cir. 2003).
IV. ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).