Hinson v. Wilkes et al

Filing 23

ORDER directing service of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and 41 to Plaintiff Hinson re Defendants' 22 MOTION to Dismiss so to assure that Plaintiff's response is made with fair notice of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure regarding motions to dismiss, generally, and motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 08/30/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and 41) (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER M. HINSON, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COI CUMMINGS; MARY ALSTON,
)
Medical Director; RUTHIE SHELTON,
)
Deputy Warden; and COUNSELOR
)
COUSINS, SART Team,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________

CV 118-025

ORDER
________
Plaintiff, an inmate at Hays State Prison in Trion, Georgia, brought the abovecaptioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events alleged to have occurred at
Augusta State Medical Prison (“ASMP”) in Grovetown, Georgia. He is proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 30, 2018. (Doc. no.
22.)
A motion to dismiss is dispositive in nature, meaning that the granting of a motion to
dismiss results in the dismissal of individual claims or an entire action. If Plaintiff fails to
respond, the motion will be deemed unopposed and granted, resulting in the dismissal of the
claims that are the subject matter of the motion. See Loc. R. 7.5.
When, on a motion to dismiss, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not
excluded by the Court, the normal course is for the Court to determine whether the motion to

dismiss should be treated as one for summary judgment and therefore disposed of as
provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Jones v. Automobile Ins. Co., 917 F.2d 1528, 1532 (11th
Cir. 1990). However, if the motion to dismiss raises the issue of exhaustion of administrative
remedies,1 the Eleventh Circuit has ruled: “Because exhaustion of administrative remedies is
a matter in abatement and not generally an adjudication on the merits, an exhaustion defense
. . . should be raised in a motion to dismiss, or be treated as such if raised in a motion for
summary judgment.” Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1374-75 (11th Cir. 2008).
Although a motion to dismiss based on an exhaustion defense need not be converted
to a motion for summary judgment, “it is proper for a judge to consider facts outside of the
pleadings and to resolve factual disputes so long as the factual disputes do not decide the
merits and the parties have sufficient opportunity to develop a record.” Id. at 1376 (citations
omitted). Therefore, if the exhaustion issue cannot be resolved based on the pleadings alone,
and if a defendant submits affidavits or other evidence in support of the motion to dismiss,
the plaintiff must be given the opportunity to submit his own affidavits or other evidence
contradicting a defendant’s submissions. See id. Accordingly, if the motion to dismiss in
this case raises the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, Plaintiff’s response to the

1

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), states, “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.”

2

motion should include appropriate supporting affidavits or other documentary evidence he
may have to contest any exhaustion issue raised by Defendants.
To assure that Plaintiff’s response is made with fair notice of the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil procedure regarding motions to dismiss, generally, and motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court DIRECTS
the CLERK of COURT to attach a copy of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and 41 to Plaintiff’s service
copy of this Order.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

3