Opinion
CASE NO. 00-CV-71563-DT
May 25, 2000
OPINION
This matter is before the Court on a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C 1983, alleging violations of state and federal rights, filed by Plaintiff David E. Schwarz. Plaintiff is a federal inmate currently confined in Cumberland, Maryland. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and monetary relief for the conditions of confinement, and for injuries sustained, at the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, Michigan. Defendants are Robert Ficano, who is the Sheriff for Wayne County, Michigan, and four individuals identified only as John Doe #1 (an inmate), John Doe(s) #2 and #3 (deputy sheriffs for Wayne County), and John Doe #4 (a physician).
Background
The complaint makes the following allegations. On January 30, 1998, Plaintiff was arrested by federal agents and taken to the Wayne County Jail, which was crowded and unpleasant. Although initially, Plaintiff was placed in a protective segregation unit, Defendant John Doe #2 subsequently forced Plaintiff into a holding cell where inmates were threatening to kill Plaintiff. Defendant John Doe #1 and other inmates then beat Plaintiff. Defendant John Doe #3 assisted Plaintiff after the assault, but he failed to investigate or instigate charges against the assaultive inmate. Defendant John Doe #4 examined Plaintiff, but failed to provide adequate medical treatment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' acts and omissions violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Discussion
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action. The Court may dismiss an indigent prisoner's civil rights complaint at any time if the action is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a Defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim "if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000).
The complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff has not shown that he exhausted administrative remedies for his claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1103 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 833, 119 S.Ct. 88, 142 L.Ed.2d 69 (1998). Plaintiff was required to exhaust any available administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court even if damages were not an available remedy in the administrative process. Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 878 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 1999).
In Riley v. Richards, decided by the Sixth Circuit on March 23, 2000, the court stated:
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner must exhaust all of his available administrative remedies, even in money damages cases, before filing in federal court a civil rights action challenging the conditions of his confinement. See Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 878-79 (6th Cir. 1999); Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 88 (1998). The prisoner has the burden of demonstrating that he has exhausted these remedies. See Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. Before the district court adjudicates any claim set forth in the plaintiffs complaint, the court must determine that the plaintiff has complied with this exhaustion requirement. See id. The prisoner "cannot simply fail to file a grievance or abandon the process before completion and claim that he has exhausted his remedies or that it is futile for him to do so because his grievance is now time-barred under the regulations." Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir. 1999). To establish that he has exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, a prisoner should attach to his § 1983 complaint any decision demonstrating the administrative disposition of his claims. See Wyatt, 193 F.3d at 878; Brown 139 F.3d at 1104.Riley v. Richards, No. 99-1327, 2000 WL 332013, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2000) (footnote added) (unpublished decision — a copy of which is attached to this Opinion).
"Prison conditions" as used in § 1997e(a) includes claims of excessive force. Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 308 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Freeman, 196 F.3d at 642-44).
Plaintiff has not alleged that the Wayne County Jail lacks a grievance mechanism or that he was precluded from exhausting administrative remedies in some manner. See White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593, 595 (6th Cir. 1997). Nor does it appear, from the record, that Plaintiff did anything to make his claims known to correctional or county officials, either informally or formally. If, in fact, Plaintiff has pursued administrative remedies, the complaint is deficient because Plaintiff failed to attach the administrative decision to his complaint. Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104. Accordingly, the complaint shall be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The requirement that a prisoner must exhaust all of this available administrative remedies before filing suit, applies to county jails as well as state prisons. Coleman v. Michigan Dep't of Corrections, No. 98-1938, 1999 WL 1253079, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 1999) (unpublished decision — a copy of which is attached to this Opinion).
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. A Judgment consistent with this Opinion shall issue forthwith.