El, Payton-Bey, Vaughn v. Toombs Warden

• Decision Date: 02 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-2181,98-2181
• Citation: 215 F.3d 640
• Parties: (6th Cir. 2000) Demetrius Knuckles El; Errick E. Payton-Bey; Michael Vaughn, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Raymond G. Toombs, Warden, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Submitted:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 640

215 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2000)

Demetrius Knuckles El; Errick E. Payton-Bey; Michael Vaughn, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Raymond G. Toombs, Warden, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-2181

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Submitted: May 2, 2000

Decided and Filed: June 15, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids; No. 97-00362--Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge.

Demetrius Knuckles El, Ionia, Michigan, Errick E. Payton-Bey, Ionia, Michigan, Michael Vaughn, Ionia, Michigan, pro se.

Mark W. Matus, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, CORRECTIONS DIVISION, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees.

Before: MERRITT, JONES, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

This prisoners' appeal in a § 1983 prison assault case is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiffs, all inmates at Ionia Maximum Facility in Ionia, Michigan, allege that on numerous occasions between October 12, 1995, and March 18, 1997, defendants violated their rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by using excessive force and engaging in "retaliatory harassment." Plaintiffs concede that they have not exhausted all available administrative remedies but argue that their complaint should not be dismissed because some of the claims have been exhausted and exhaustion is not necessary for the unexhausted claims. The issues before us are as follows:

1. Plaintiffs contend that their cases should not be dismissed because their complaints contain both exhausted and unexhausted claims. We reserve to another day the question of whether exhausted claims in a "mixed" complaint should be addressed when such claims otherwise meet the pleading requirements or whether such a complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. The complaint here does not meet the pleading requirements set forth in Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 833 (1998), and it was therefore properly dismissed. In Brown, we held that the statutory language in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)¹ -- "no action shall be brought until all available administrative remedies are exhausted" - "should be interpreted to mean precisely what is obviously intended - that a federal court should not prematurely decide the merits of any such action." Id. We held that in order to effectuate this language, 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. The reason for the requirement to show with specificity both the claims presented and the fact of exhaustion is so that the district court may intelligently decide if the issues raised can be decided on the merits.

District courts should not have to hold time-consuming evidentiary hearings in order simply to determine whether it should reach the merits or decline under the mandatory language of § 1997e ("No action shall be brought . . . ."). 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. There are thousands of these cases in the Sixth Circuit district courts every year and approximately one thousand in the court of appeals. In the absence...