Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America
| Decision Date | 08 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-5227.,No. 03-5228.,No. 03-5389.,03-5227.,03-5228.,03-5389. |
| Citation | 380 F.3d 989 |
| Parties | Louis BOYD; Sammie Everett, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Murray Allen; Howard R. Harris; Joshua O. Kyles; Larry B. Lemons; Jesus Villanueva Mata; Patrick U. McGee; Randall Miller; Paul Nemchek; Luis Nieves; Jerome Paul; Cory Purifoy; Shannon Quinn; Tracy Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Patrick Whalen, Warden; Steven Dotson; Mike Tweety; Jim Cooksey; Tonya Boyd; Prison Realty Trust, Inc., a/k/a Prison Realty Corporation; Prison Management Services, Inc.; Doctor R. Crants; Benny Reeves; David Payne; Correctional Managements; Christopher Cary, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, J. Daniel Breen, J.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
C. Michael Robbins (argued and briefed), Robbins & Thomas, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
James I. Pentecost, Pentecost (argued), Pentecost, Glenn &Rudd, Jackson, TN, for Defendant-Appellee.
Tom Anderson (briefed), Anderson LAw Firm, Jackson, TN, for R. Crants.
Before GILMAN and COOK, Circuit Judges; CLELAND, District Judge.*
The 15 plaintiffs in these three consolidated cases are prisoners who were convicted by Wisconsin state courts and held, at all relevant times, at the Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF) located in Whiteville, Tennessee. WCF is operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a private entity. The plaintiffs allege that they were severely beaten and subjected to racial epithets by members of WCF's Special Operations Response Team (SORT) in August of 1998, in violation of their rights under both federal and state law.
A magistrate judge decided these cases with the parties' consent. The judge dismissed the claims of all 15 of the named plaintiffs, reasoning that they had not exhausted their available administrative remedies before filing suit as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment as to plaintiffs Allen, Harris, Kyles, Lemons, Mata, McGee, Miller, Paul, Purifoy, Quinn, and Smith, REVERSE the judgment as to plaintiffs Boyd, Everette, Nemchek, and Nieves, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This case concerns the efforts of the plaintiffs to utilize WCF's grievance procedure. The grievance procedure is summarized in this section, while the plaintiffs' claims are discussed under the individual subheadings in Part II.C. below.
WCF's grievance procedure in effect during August of 1998 was outlined in an inmate handbook dated July 6, 1998, which states in relevant part as follows:
Each inmate at Whiteville Correctional Facility has the right to utilize the grievance procedure without fear of reprisal. The grievance procedure provides a forum in which inmates may formally raise their concerns over incidents or conditions which personally affect them and allows these complaints to be considered and addressed at an institutional level.
Informal resolution of grievances is encouraged. This process is initiated prior to the formal logging of a grievance in which the inmate agrees to allow a staff member to attempt to resolve his complaint.
Prior to filing a grievance, you should attempt to obtain an answer or solution to your grievance through a member of the unit team or you may also contact the grievance chairperson for assistance. The grievance office is located in the F wing.
Grievance forms are available from any unit team member or in the library. Grievances may be deposited in the locked mail box located in front of the inmate dining room. The mail box is emptied daily, Monday through Friday. Emergency grievances should be forwarded to the grievance chairperson or shift supervisor (whenever the chairperson is not available) for immediate attention. If the matter is deemed a non-emergency, then it will be processed through normal procedures.
All grievances must be filed within seven (7) days of the occurrence or most recent in a series of occurrences giving rise to the grievance.
The district court explained the operation of the grievance system as follows:
In order to initiate the grievance procedure, an inmate must complete a grievance form identified as Form 14-5A and place it in the Grievance Mail Box or forward it to the Facility Grievance Officer. Upon receipt of the grievance, the Facility Grievance Officer assigns a number to the case and maintains a permanent grievance log. That individual shall, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the grievance, conduct an investigation into the issue raised in the grievance and render a written decision, which is set forth in the "Report and Decision" portion of the grievance form. A copy of the decision is forwarded to the inmate. In the event an inmate is not satisfied with the decision of the Facility Grievance Officer, he may, within five (5) days of his receipt of the decision, appeal to the warden or his designee by completing the Request for Warden Review portion of the grievance form and submitting it to the warden.... The warden's written decision is to be rendered within fifteen (15) days of his receipt of the appeal. A copy of the grievance form will then be returned to the Facility Grievance Officer, who will forward a copy to the inmate.
The plaintiffs originally brought these suits in the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Tennessee state law. All three cases were eventually transferred to the Western District of Tennessee. The parties consented to having the cases heard by a magistrate judge, who subsequently granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all of the claims under review based upon the plaintiffs' alleged failure to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court.
We review de novo a district court's interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 503 (6th Cir.2001). The same standard of review applies to the dismissal of a prisoner's civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997).
The PLRA states in relevant part: "No 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). In the present case, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims without prejudice for failure to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a). The plaintiffs, however, contend that they were not required to exhaust WCF's grievance procedure before filing suit because "[a] grievance system entirely under the control of a private[,] for profit corporation engaged in [the] housing of state prisoners with no oversight by any agency of the state or federal government is not an available administrative remedy as that term is used in the PLRA."
This court has no published opinion holding that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to prisoners held in privately operated correctional facilities. In one unpublished opinion, however, this court affirmed the dismissal of a prisoner's suit against CCA because the prisoner had failed "to set forth any allegations that [he] submitted his complaints to the prison's formal grievance process and that any grievances were appealed to the highest authority." Butler v. Gardner, 21 Fed.Appx. 287, 288 (6th Cir.2001); see also Robinson v. Corrections Corp. of America, 14 Fed.Appx. 382, 383 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished) (); Treat v. Corrections Corp. of America, 16 Fed.Appx. 310, 311 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished) ().
The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have likewise concluded that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to suits against privately operated prisons. Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1184 (10th Cir.2004) (); Murphy v. Jones, 27 Fed.Appx. 826, 827 (9th Cir.2001) (unpublished) (). As the Tenth Circuit explained in Ross,
[t]he purpose of this exhaustion requirement is to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). It is designed to achieve this purpose by 1) allowing prison officials an opportunity to satisfy the inmate's complaint, thus potentially obviating the need for litigation; 2) filtering out some frivolous claims; and 3) creating an administrative record that facilitates review of cases that are ultimately brought to court. Id. at 525, 122 S.Ct. 983.
We are persuaded that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to prisoners held in private facilities. This conclusion is consistent with the language of the statute and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haight v. Thompson
...remedies are exhausted when prison officials fail to timely respond to a properly filed grievance.” Boyd v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir.2004). The inmates met their end of the bargain by requesting a ruling. Four-plus years later, they have nothing to show for it. That is......
-
J.P. v. Taft
...must attach documentation to the complaint as proof. Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488 (6th Cir.2002); but see, Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 380 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir.2004) (a "prisoner-plaintiff may bear his pleading burden either `by attaching a copy of the applicable administrative......
-
Bey v. Johnson
...respond to [a] grievance," that grievance should be considered exhausted for the purposes of § 1997e(a). Boyd v. Corrections Corporation of America, 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir.2004). The prisoner in Boyd submitted evidence that he filed a grievance, that the grievance was delivered to the a......
-
Shye v. Melton
...believed that it was pointless to file a grievance. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6; Napier, 636 F.3d at 222; Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 380 F.3d 989, 998 (6th Cir. 2004); Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir. 1999). Through the Declaration of Defendant Harvey, the Defendants s......
-
Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America.
...Appeals Court EXHAUSTION PLRA -- Prison Litigation Reform Act Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 2004). A group of prisoners at a private correctional facility brought an action against the operator of the facility and individuals, alleging they were severely beate......
-
Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America.
...Appeals Court PRIVATE OPERATOR PLRA -- Prison Litigation Reform Act Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 2004). A group of prisoners at a private correctional facility brought an action against the operator of the facility and individuals, alleging they were severely......