United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
pro se and in forma pauperis, Paul Williams
brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against his treating
physician at Coastal State Prison. The Court granted
plaintiff's request to pursue his case in forma
pauperis (IFP), doc. 4, and he returned the necessary
forms. Docs. 5 & 6. The Court now screens the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the
immediate dismissal of any pro se complaint that
fails to state at least one actionable claim against a
governmental entity or official.
was injured when a light fixture fell and struck him on
August 14, 2018, during a strip search at Chatham County
Detention Center (CCDC). Doc. 1 at 5. It twisted his neck and
knocked him to the floor, and Williams was left bloody from
the impact. Id. Nurse Simmons evaluated him and
“wiped blood from [his] head and hands” and
informed him he would be seen by medical the next morning.
Id. Williams was not seen, however, until a week
later when medical performed an X-ray. Id. Plaintiff
complains of “chronic pain” in his upper and
lower back and headaches since August, demands $150, 000 in
damages for “pain and suffering, professional
negligence, medical malpractice, and endangerment of [his]
life, ” and asks the Court to transfer him to another
facility for fear of reprisal. Id. at 6.
threshold matter, Williams admits that he has not yet fully
exhausted his administrative remedies. Doc. 1 at 3-4. Failure
to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense,
and inmates are not required to specially plead or
demonstrate exhaustion in their complaint. Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). Normal pleading rules
still apply to prisoner conditions-of-confinements suits,
however. Id. at 214-15. When a prisoner's
failure to exhaust is apparent on the face of a complaint,
making it clear that the prisoner cannot state a claim for
relief, dismissal is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Id. at 214-15. Williams filed a grievance
“let[ting] [CCDC] know of [his] injury” but had
received “no responses” as of November 13, 2018
(when he filed the Complaint). Doc. 1 at 3. In other words,
he has not received a denial or other final resolution to his
grievance, much less appealed that denial to the highest
level possible according to the prison's administrative
procedures. Id. at 3-4. Because Williams has not
exhausted his admittedly available administrative remedies
prior to filing suit, his claims must be dismissed without
prejudice. See, e.g., Gill v. Deal, 2018 WL 3650269
at *3 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 1, 2018); Sewell v. Ramsey,
2007 WL 201269 at *2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 24, 2007).
a pro se prisoner normally should be given an
opportunity to amend his complaint at least once, see,
e.g., Johnson v. Boyd, 568 Fed.Appx. 719, 724 (11th Cir.
2014); Duff v. Steub, 378 Fed.Appx. 868, 872 (11th
Cir. 2010), “a district court need not allow amendment
if the amended complaint would still be subject to
dismissal.” Jenkins v. Walker, 620 Fed.Appx.
709, 711 (11th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff's medical care
claims are unexhausted and thus dead on arrival, and do not
Paul William's Complaint should be DISMISSED
without prejudice. Meanwhile, it is time for
plaintiff to pay his filing fee. His PLRA paperwork reflects
$5.80 in average monthly deposits over the six month period
prior to the date of his Prison Account Statement. Doc. 6. He
therefore owes an initial partial filing fee of $1.16.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (1) (requiring an
initial fee assessment “when funds exist, ” under
a specific 20 percent formula). Plaintiff's custodian (or
designee) shall remit the $1.16 to the Clerk of Court and set
aside 20 percent of all future deposits to his account, then
forward those funds to the Clerk each time the set aside
amount reaches $10.00, until the balance of the Court's
$350.00 filing fee has been paid in full.
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written
objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on
all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542,
545 (11th Cir. 2015).
ORDERED AND REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 The case cannot be stayed either,
pending exhaustion, because the Prisoner Litigation Reform
Act requires an inmate to exhaust his administrative remedies
before filing his complaint in federal court. See Brown
v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207-08 (11th Cir. 2000);
(“when a state provides a grievance procedure for its
prisoners, . . . 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”); see also Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d
1279, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 1999).
 Despite the lack of any apparent basis
for viable amendment, plaintiff's opportunity to object
to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service,
see infra, affords him an opportunity to resuscitate
his case. He may also submit an Amended Complaint during that
period, if he believes it would cure the legal defects
discussed above. See Willis v. Darden, 2012 WL
170163 at * 2 n.3 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2012) (citing Smith
v. Stanley, 2011 WL 1114503 at * 1 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 19,
 The Clerk is DIRECTED
to send this Order to plaintiff's account custodian
immediately, as this payment directive is nondispositive
within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), so no Rule 72(b)
adoption is required. In the event he is transferred to
another institution, his present custodian shall forward a
copy of this Order and all financial information concerning
payment of the filing fee and costs in this case to
plaintiff's new custodian. The balance due from plaintiff
shall be collected ...