Johnson v. Meadows, 03-15636.

• Citation: 418 F.3d 1152
• Decision Date: 26 July 2005
• Docket Number: No. 03-15636.,03-15636.
• Parties: David JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tydus MEADOWS, Warden, Bostick State Prison, Bob Barry, Warden of Care and Treatment, Bostick State Prison, Ricky Jackson, Warden of Security, Bostick State Prison, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

418 F.3d 1152

David JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tydus MEADOWS, Warden, Bostick State Prison, Bob Barry, Warden of Care and Treatment, Bostick State Prison, Ricky Jackson, Warden of Security, Bostick State Prison, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 03-15636.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 26, 2005.

Nicholas G. Dumich, State Law Dept., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Stephen Louis Armstrong Dillard (Court-Appointed), James, Bates, Pope & Spivey, LLP, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Before DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG^*, Judge.

DUBINA, Circuit Judge:

In this interlocutory appeal, appellants Tydus Meadows, Warden of Bostick State Prison ("Bostick"), Bob Barry, Warden of Care and Treatment at Bostick, and Ricky Jackson, Warden of Security at Bostick ("the Bostick wardens"), appeal the district court's order denying their motion to dismiss appellee David Johnson's ("Johnson") complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The issue presented on appeal is whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act's ("PLRA"), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), exhaustion requirement requires a prisoner either to meet timely the administrative deadlines or the good cause standard of Georgia's administrative grievance procedures before filing a federal claim. This issue is one of first impression in our circuit and essentially asks what exhaustion requires under the PLRA—simple exhaustion, or something more, such as "proper exhaustion." See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 228 (3rd Cir.2004). The question also implies whether there is a procedural default concept within the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. Because we conclude that an untimely administrative grievance does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA, we reverse the district court's order and remand this case with directions that the district court dismiss Johnson's complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

Johnson, a Georgia state prisoner, originally filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with the district court on August 20, 1999, alleging exposure to hazardous chemicals, harassment by prison officials, and retaliation from prison officials. On February 20, 2001, the district court dismissed that complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Johnson filed an out-of-time administrative grievance in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, making similar allegations to those in his federal complaint. The Corrections Department denied his grievance as untimely because the Georgia Prison Inmate Grievance Procedure requires that all grievances be filed "within five (5) calendar days from the date that the prisoner discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the incident giving rise to the complaint and was able to file the grievance." See Ga. Dept. of Corrections S.O.P. IIBOD-0001 (2001). At the appeals level, the agency did not address Johnson's grievance because he untimely filed.

On July 18, 2001, following the denial of his appeal, Johnson filed another federal complaint in which he reiterated his prior complaints and requested monetary damages. The Bostick wardens filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Johnson's complaint was barred by the statute of limitations because he filed his second federal complaint over two years after the complained of conduct. They also invoked the Eleventh Amendment. Johnson first responded that because he originally filed a timely complaint in 1999, which was dismissed without prejudice in January 2001 to allow him the opportunity to exhaust his administrative remedies, his July 2001 complaint was not time-barred because the statute of limitations period was tolled during his federal suit. Johnson also responded that the Bostick wardens did not have immunity in their official capacities.

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the district court grant the Bostick wardens' motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge determined that Johnson's complaint was filed untimely because the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of Johnson's initial complaint and because he failed to show that an inequitable event prevented him from timely filing his complaint. Johnson objected to the magistrate judge's report and moved for reconsideration. The magistrate judge vacated its report, finding that there should have been an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations during the time that Johnson attempted to exhaust by filing the out-of-time grievance after the district court first dismissed his complaint.

The Bostick wardens filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that Johnson's untimely use of prison grievance procedures meant that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies, stripping the federal court of jurisdiction. They also asserted that Johnson did not attempt to file a grievance before filing his federal complaint and failed to show good cause when filing his untimely grievance. The magistrate judge recommended granting the second motion to dismiss because Johnson never sought permission to file an out-of-time grievance, but the magistrate judge recommended that the dismissal be without prejudice to permit Johnson a final opportunity to file an out-of-time grievance. Johnson objected through an amended response and a motion for reconsideration. The magistrate judge again entered an order vacating the report and recommendation. The magistrate judge subsequently entered a new report and recommendation, granting the Bostick wardens' second motion to dismiss only to the extent that they were being sued in their official capacities. The Bostick wardens objected, claiming that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that Johnson had properly exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit.

The district court adopted the report and recommendation. The Bostick wardens filed a motion for certification for interlocutory appeal on the following issue: whether the failure of a plaintiff to grieve timely requires a dismissal of a federal suit with prejudice, when the prisoner did not follow internal grievance procedure initially, and upon a subsequent filing of an out-of-time grievance, the prison administrators find no grounds (or good cause) to authorize said out-of-time grievance. The district court granted the motion, and this court granted permission for the Bostick wardens' interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

II. ISSUE

Whether the PLRA's exhaustion requirement, codified in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires prisoners to meet timely the deadlines or the good cause standard of Georgia's administrative grievance procedures before filing a federal claim.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews de novo a district court's interpretation and application of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)'s exhaustion requirement. Higginbottom v. Carter, 223 F.3d 1259, 1260 (11th Cir.2000).

IV. DISCUSSION

Section 1997e(a) provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The PLRA's exhaustion requirement "applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). This provision entirely eliminates judicial discretion and instead mandates strict exhaustion, "irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues." Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1825 n. 6, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). Congress intended to afford prison officials time to address grievances internally before allowing a prisoner to initiate a federal lawsuit. See Porter, 534 U.S. at 525, 122 S.Ct. at 988. Thus, whatever the precise contours of what exhaustion requires, it plainly is procedural in nature:

While the modifier "available" requires the possibility of some relief for the action complained of . . ., the word "exhausted" has a decidedly procedural emphasis. It makes sense only in referring to the procedural means, not the particular relief ordered. . . . [O]ne "exhausts" processes, not forms of relief, and the statute provides that one must.

Booth, 532 U.S. at 738-39, 121 S.Ct. at 1824. "In other words, the modifier `available' in the PLRA means that inmates must exhaust administrative remedies so long as there is the possibility of at least some kind of relief." Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1187 (10th Cir.2004).

Therefore, this court has noted that "when a state provides a grievance procedure for its prisoners, as Georgia does here, an inmate alleging harm suffered from prison conditions must file a grievance and exhaust the remedies available under that procedure before pursuing a § 1983 lawsuit." Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207 (11th Cir.2000). This court has described seven policy reasons for favoring an exhaustion requirement:

(1) to avoid premature interruption of the administrative process; (2) to let the agency develop the necessary factual background upon which decisions should be based; (3) to permit the agency to exercise its discretion or apply its expertise; (4) to improve the efficiency of the administrative process; (5) to conserve scarce judicial resources, since the complaining party may be successful in vindicating rights in the administrative process and the courts may never have to intervene; (6) to give the agency a chance to discover and correct its own errors; and (7) to avoid the possibility that frequent and deliberate flouting of the administrative...