Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

O'Quinn v. Sykes

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

September 14, 2017

JOSEPH O'QUINN, Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT SYKES et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          BRIAN J. DAVIS United States District Judge

         I. Status

         Plaintiff is an inmate confined in the Florida penal system. He is proceeding pro se on an Amended Civil Rights Complaint (Amended Complaint) (Doc. 37) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed his original Complaint (Doc. 1) on June 30, 2016, pursuant to the mailbox rule. This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Anderson, Grimes, Ford, McNeil, Morris, and Sykes] (Motion One) (Doc. 42)[1] and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Mallard, Sikcier, and Swift] (Motion Two) (Doc. 56).[2] Plaintiff responded. See Order (Doc. 40); Plaintiff's Objection to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Response One) (Doc. 49), Plaintiff's Objection to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Response Two) (Doc. 61), and Plaintiff's Objection to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Response Three) (Doc. 63).

         II. Motion to Dismiss

         "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

         Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, and they ask that his Amended Complaint be dismissed with respect to all Defendants, except Defendant Sykes. Motion One at 2 and Motion Two at 2. Defendants also assert that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of failure to protect, or any other claim, that is plausible on its face. Motion One at 7-10; Motion Two at 7-11. The Court will first address the exhaustion matter, and then address the issue of whether Plaintiff failed to state a claim.

         III. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

         Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) with respect to all of the Defendants, except Defendant Sykes. Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to properly avail himself of the grievance process with regard to his claims. See the Declaration of Joy Proudman and the Declaration of Lawanda Sanders and attachments (Docs. 42-1, 42-2, 62-1, and 62-2).

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies before a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with respect to prison conditions by a prisoner may be initiated in this Court. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides: "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." In this instance, Defendants bear the burden of proving a failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1082-83 (11th Cir. 2008), relying on Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Guidelines are provided for reviewing a prisoner civil rights action for exhaustion compliance:

Before a prisoner may bring a prison-conditions suit under § 1983, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires that he exhaust all available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1822, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). The purpose of the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is to "afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case." Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2387, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (quotation omitted). To properly exhaust, a prisoner must "[c]ompl[y] with prison grievance procedures." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 922-23, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).

Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 2015).

         A number of factors guide the Court. Initially, the Court recognizes that exhaustion of available administrative remedies is "a precondition to an adjudication on the merits" and is mandatory under the PLRA. Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1374 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1074 (2008); Jones, 549 U.S. at 211; Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) ("Exhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the district court, but is mandatory.") (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has stated that "failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA[.]" Jones, 549 U.S. at 216. Although, "the PLRA exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional[, ]" Woodford, 548 U.S. at 101, "exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA[;]" therefore, "unexhausted claims cannot be brought." Pavao v. Sims, 679 F.App'x 819, 823 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

         As recognized by this Court,

"The only limit to § 1997e(a)'s mandate is the one baked into its text: An inmate need exhaust only such administrative remedies as are 'available.'" 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1862 (2016). For an administrative remedy to be available, the "remedy must be 'capable of use for the accomplishment of [its] purpose.'" Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1084 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Goebert v. Lee Cty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2007)).
In Ross, [3] the Supreme Court identified three circumstances in which administrative remedies would be considered unavailable. First, "an administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple dead end-with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates." 136 S.Ct. at 1859. Second, "an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use. In this situation, some mechanism exists to provide relief, but no ordinary prisoner can discern or navigate it." Id. Third, an administrative remedy is unavailable "when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation." Id. at 1860.

Davis v. Sec'y, Dept. of Corr., No. 3:15-CV-649-J-34JRK, 2017 WL 1885366, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2017).

         In reviewing the question of exhaustion, "[t]he only facts pertinent to determining whether a prisoner has satisfied the PLRA's exhaustion requirement are those that existed when he filed his original complaint. Smith v. Terry, 491 F.App'x 81, 83 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 981 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)). Indeed, "[t]he time the [PLRA] sets for determining whether exhaustion of administrative remedies has occurred is when the legal action is brought, because it is then that the exhaustion bar is to be applied." Wheeler v. Davis, No. 5:14CV271/WS/CJK, 2017 WL 1029119, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2017) (report and recommendation) (quoting Goebert v. Lee Cty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1324 (11th Cir. 2007)) (emphasis in Wheeler), report and recommendation adopted by No. 5:14CV271-WS/CJK, 2017 WL 1027035 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2017).

         Thus, the relevant question before this Court is whether Plaintiff properly exhausted available administrative remedies as of June 30, 2016. The question of availability of the procedure goes to whether the administrative procedure was available before June 30, 2016, prior to the filing of the initial complaint. To construe the exhaustion requirement otherwise would render the PLRA "a toothless scheme." Woodford, 548 U.S. at 95.

         Not only is there an exhaustion requirement, "the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion." Woodford, 548 U.S at 93.

Because exhaustion requirements are designed to deal with parties who do not want to exhaust, administrative law creates an incentive for these parties to do what they would otherwise prefer not to do, namely, to give the agency a fair and full opportunity to adjudicate their claims. Administrative law does this by requiring proper exhaustion of administrative remedies, which "means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)." Pozo, [4] 286 F.3d, at 1024. . . .

Id. at 90 (emphasis added). In fact, "[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules." Id.

         There are no disputed issues of fact as to whether administrative remedies were available to Plaintiff and whether he exhausted all available administrative remedies with respect to Defendant Sykes. Plaintiff's Exhibit A (Doc. 51-1). Plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to Defendant Sykes as he grieved the matter and his grievance was approved.

         The Court must now make findings on the disputed issues of fact to decide whether administrative remedies were available to Plaintiff, and if so, whether he properly exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the remaining Defendants.[5]

         The Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) provides an internal grievance procedure. See Chapter 33-103, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Thus, to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, this Court must examine the relevant documents to determine whether the incidents in question were grieved. If these incidents were grieved and the documents complied with the deadlines and other procedural rules as set forth in the F.A.C., the issues raised therein are exhausted.

         Generally, the FDOC provides a three-step grievance procedure.

In Florida, the grievance process consists of a three-step procedure. An inmate must first file an "informal grievance ... to the staff member who is responsible in the particular area of the problem." Fla. Admin. Code Ann. § 33-103.005(1). The second step requires the inmate file a formal grievance with the warden. Id. § 33-103.006(1)(a). If the inmate is unsuccessful at this point, he may submit an appeal to the Secretary of the DOC. Id. § 33-103.007.

Kozuh v. Nichols, 185 F.App'x 874, 877 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1222 (2007).

         Of initial significance, if Plaintiff filed a grievance and attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies, he would have needed to submit an initial grievance with the appropriate staff, a formal grievance with the warden, and then an appeal to the Secretary to properly grieve the matter in compliance with the procedural requirements of the administrative grievance process.

         Plaintiff filed an "Emergency Grievance" with the Secretary of the FDOC, but it was returned without action as being in non- compliance with the Rules. Plaintiff's Exhibits E & F (Doc. 51-4 & 51-5); (Doc. 62-1). By definition, an emergency grievance is "[a] grievance of those matters which, if disposed of according to the regular time frames, would subject the inmate to substantial risk of personal injury or cause other serious and irreparable harm to the inmate." F.A.C. § 33-103-002(4). An inmate may proceed directly to this step if he is submitting an emergency grievance and he (1) states at the beginning of Part A of Form DC1-303 that the grievance concerns an emergency; and (2) clearly states "the reason for not initially bringing the complaint to the attention of institutional staff and by-passing the informal and formal grievance steps of the institution or facility[.]" Id. § 33-103.007(6)(a)(1)-(2).

         In this instance, the reviewer found no valid reason within the grievance for by-passing the lower levels and determined the grievance to be in non-compliance with the rules.[6]Id. ยง 33-103.014(1)(f) ("[t]he inmate did not provide a valid reason for bypassing the previous levels of review as required or the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.