Andrew Kilpatrick v. Danny Hollifield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying as moot Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999444888-2]; denying as moot Motion to amend/correct [999444888-3]; denying as moot Motion to supplement [999444888-4] Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00022-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999522412]. Mailed to: Andrew Kilpatrick. [14-7351]

Appeal: 14-7351

Doc: 14

Filed: 02/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7351

ANDREW TAB KILPATRICK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DANNY HOLLIFIELD, Captain at Clay County Detention Center;
CLAY COUNTY DETENTION & MEDICAL STAFF,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-00022-FDW)

Submitted:

January 28, 2015

Decided:

February 3, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Tab Kilpatrick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7351

Doc: 14

Filed: 02/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Andrew

Tab

Kilpatrick

appeals

the

district

court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Because

we conclude the action was dismissed prematurely, we vacate and
remand.
“Whether
plaintiff

to

a

district

exhaust

[his]

court

properly

administrative

required

remedies

a

before

bringing suit in federal court is a question of law” that this
court reviews de novo.

Talbot v. Lucy Corr Nursing Home, 118

F.3d 215, 218 (4th Cir. 1997).
(“PLRA”)

requires

a

The Prison Litigation Reform Act

prisoner

to

exhaust

his

available

administrative remedies before filing an action under § 1983.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2012); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-85
(2006).

Such exhaustion must be “proper”; that is, the prisoner

must “us[e] all steps that the agency holds out[] and do[] so
properly.”

Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 (internal quotation marks

and emphasis omitted).
Under
remedies

the

is

affirmative

an

PLRA,

failure

to

defense,

exhaust

which

an

administrative
inmate

required to plead or demonstrate in his complaint.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007).

is

not

Jones v.

Rather, the defendant bears the

burden to establish a prisoner’s failure to exhaust.
Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008).
2

Moore v.

A district court

Appeal: 14-7351

is

Doc: 14

permitted

Filed: 02/03/2015

to

address

the

Pg: 3 of 3

issue

of

exhaustion

sua

sponte,

however, and may dismiss the complaint without input from the
defendant if the “failure to exhaust is apparent from the face
of

the

complaint,”

and

the

inmate

has

been

opportunity to respond on the exhaustion issue.

provided

an

Anderson v. XYZ

Corr. Health Servs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674, 682 (4th Cir. 2005).
Our review of the record indicates that the failure to
exhaust is not clear from the face of Kilpatrick’s complaint and
associated pleadings.
detention

center

Particularly, it is unclear whether the

that

housed

administrative

steps

request

Kilpatrick

forms

beyond

Kilpatrick

filing

apparently

the

required

inmate

filed.

further

grievance

and

Accordingly,

we

vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further
proceedings

consistent

with

this

opinion.

We

deny

as

moot

Kilpatrick’s motions to appoint counsel, to amend his complaint,
and to supplement his complaint.
the

merits

of

Kilpatrick’s

We express no opinion about

claims.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the material before this court and argument will
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3