Pilon v. Bureau of Prison, FCI Aliceville, AL et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 8/3/2017. (AHI)
2017 Aug-03 AM 09:19
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
Case No. 7:14-cv-00928-CLS-JEO
The magistrate judge filed a report on April 22, 2016, recommending the
defendants’ special report be treated as a motion to dismiss and further recommending
that the motion be granted. (Doc. 40). Plaintiff filed objections to the report and
recommendation on May 9, 2016. (Doc. 41).
In her objections, plaintiff alleges that she did not receive the Warden’s
response to her BP-9 until August 29, 2014, “which caused the landslide effect” of
delaying her appeals. (Doc. 41 at 2, 3). The Warden signed the response to the
plaintiff’s BP-9 on August 14, 2014, and notified plaintiff that if she was dissatisfied
with the response, she could appeal. (Id. at 3). The Warden noted that plaintiff’s
appeal must be received in the Regional Office within 20 calendar days of the date
of the response. (Id. at 3). Accordingly, plaintiff’s appeal should have been received
by the Regional Office on September 3, 2014. Plaintiff’s response was not received
by the Regional Office until September 25, 2014, and therefore it was denied as
untimely. (Doc. 22 at 11).
Plaintiff’s claim that she did not receive the Warden’s response to her BP-9
until August 29, 2014 is not well taken since plaintiff alleged in her amended
complaint, under penalty of perjury, that she received the Warden’s response to her
BP-9 on August 18, 2014. (Doc. 19 at 7). Moreover, plaintiff’s time to appeal is not
based on the date she received the Warden’s response, but rather the date the Warden
signed the response. (Doc. 41 at 3). If an inmate demonstrates a valid reason for
delay, an extension in filing time may be allowed under 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). (Doc.
35-13, Ex. 11, Collins Decl. ¶ 5). Plaintiff does not allege that she demonstrated a
valid reason for the delay. Based on the record, plaintiff simply failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies within the allotted time.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the court
ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge and ACCEPTS his recommendations that
defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint be granted and
plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for failing to exhaust her administrative remedies.
A final order consistent with this memorandum opinion will be entered
DONE this 3rd day of August, 2017.
United States District Judge
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?