Dwayne Bacon v. Kathleen Greene
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DWAYNE DION BACON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN GREENE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cv-00261-AW)
February 25, 2009
March 24, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne Dion Bacon, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Dwayne Dion Bacon, a Maryland prisoner, alleged in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint that correctional officers at the Eastern Correctional Institution failed to intervene during an assault and that Kathleen Greene, the warden, ignored his request for the names of officers on duty during the incident. Greene moved for summary judgment, asserting Bacon failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court agreed and On appeal, Bacon concedes
granted summary judgment to Greene.
that he did not file a request for administrative remedies, but he argues, as he did in the district court, that he was unable to pursue these remedies because Greene did not provide him with the names of correctional officers on duty during the incident. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, "viewing the facts and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). judgment is proper "if the pleadings, the Summary and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 56(c). The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") requires a prisoner to properly exhaust available administrative remedies 2 Fed. R. Civ. P.
prior to filing a § 1983 action. 2003); Woodford v. Ngo, of 717, 548
42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West 81, 84 (2006) (requiring Moore v.
exhaustion 517 F.3d of
administrative 725 (4th
remedies); 2008) PLRA's
requirement is mandatory," Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health Servs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674, 677 (4th Cir. 2005), and "applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong," Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). We have recognized, however, that "an administrative remedy is not considered to have been available if a prisoner, through no fault of his own, was prevented from availing himself of it." Moore, 517 F.3d at 725. Thus, "when prison officials
prevent inmates from using the administrative process . . ., the process that exists on paper becomes unavailable in reality." Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating administrative remedy rendered unavailable when prison officials prevent prisoner from using it). Accordingly, the district
court is "obligated to ensure that any defects in exhaustion were not procured from the action or inaction of prison
Aquilar-Avellaveda v. Terrell, 478 F.3d 1223, 1225
(10th Cir. 2007). Viewing Bacon, we the facts there in is the a light most issue Bacon favorable as has to to the
throughout the proceedings that Greene ignored his requests for disclosure of information regarding the officers on duty at the time of the assault. information rendered remedy He further asserted that this lack of him incapable would of filing a request for
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district In doing so, we do have been properly
court and remand for further proceedings. not hold that administrative remedies
exhausted, but only that there is a genuine issue as to whether officials withheld information that made an administrative
filing futile or impossible. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
process. VACATED AND REMANDED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?