United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Frederick
Head. (Doc. 14). Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, it is RECOMMENDED
that the Defendant's motion be GRANTED.
Jammie Maurice West, a prisoner, complains of mold and other
unsanitary conditions at the Riverbend Correctional Facility,
where Plaintiff has been confined since May 22, 2014.
See (Doc. 8, pp. 4-5). These conditions allegedly
caused Plaintiff to suffer from a variety of medical
reactions, including vomiting and diarrhea. (Id., p.
5). Liberally construing Plaintiff's allegations, the
Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim against Frederick Head, the
Warden of Riverbend Correctional Facility, based on the
possibility of “widespread abuse.” (Id.,
p. 12). As noted by the Defendant, (Doc. 14-1, p. 2),
Plaintiff previously raised the same allegations in West
v. Head, No. 1:17-cv-317 (CAP), CM/ECF Docket Entry 1
(docketed Jan. 26, 2017), an action which the Northern
District of Georgia dismissed based on Plaintiff's
failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See
id., Docket Entries 3, 5.
PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust available administrative
remedies before bringing an action with respect to prison
conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or any other federal
law. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion in this context
means proper exhaustion: prisoners must “complete the
administrative review process in accordance with the
applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a
precondition to bringing suit in a federal court.”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006). The
exhaustion requirement is “designed to eliminate
unwarranted federal-court interference with the
administration of prisons” by “seek[ing] to
afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address
complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a
federal case.” Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d
1077, 1085 (11th Cir. 2008).
Eleventh Circuit's Turner opinion prescribes a
two-step process for reviewing motions to dismiss based on a
prisoner's failure to exhaust. A reviewing Court first:
[L]ooks to the factual allegations in the defendant's
motion to dismiss and those in the plaintiff's response,
and if they conflict, takes the plaintiff's version of
the facts as true. If, in that light, the defendant is
entitled to have the complaint dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, it must be dismissed.
Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082-83.
if the Complaint is not dismissed under step one, the Court:
[P]roceeds to make specific findings in order to resolve the
disputed factual issues related to exhaustion …. Once
the court makes findings on the disputed issues of fact, it
then decides whether under those findings the prisoner has
exhausted his available administrative remedies.