Joseph Klug v. R Rivera

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Joseph Emil Klug. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-12862

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12862
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00059-MP-EMT
JOSEPH EMIL KLUG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
R RIVERA,
PSY D Somp Coordinator,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 9, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-12862

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Page: 2 of 2

Joseph Emil Klug appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal of his complaint.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Klug’s complaint for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Id. § 1997e. We affirm.
The district court did not err by sua sponte dismissing Klug’s complaint that
the Inmate Handbook for the Sex Offender Management Program contains
overbroad and vague prohibitions of certain materials. Under the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act of 1996, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail,
prison, or correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available
are exhausted.” Id. § 1997e(a). The Bureau of Prisons provides an administrative
process to remedy prisoner complaints, and Klug alleged that he had failed to
exhaust that administrative process before filing his complaint. The district court
was required to dismiss Klug’s complaint, “even if the relief offered by that
program d[id] not appear to be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.” See Alexander v.
Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 1998). Because the dismissal was without
prejudice, Klug may refile his complaint. And the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Klug’s request for injunctive relief, which is available
“only if the moving party [can] show[] that . . . [he] has a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Klug’s complaint without prejudice.
2