Jenkins v. Hutcheson

Filing 42

ORDER adopting re 34 Report and Recommendations denying re 24 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 2/11/2015. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

rr
V) 2Z

cj,
-n

rn

ADRIAN JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
:

V.

CIVIL ACTIONJ

0

14-

JOSEPH HUTCHESON,
Defendant.
ORDER

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned
concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Defendant
filed Objections. Plaintiff filed a Response, Defendant filed a Reply, and Plaintiff filed a
Surreply. In his Objections, Defendant contends that there is nothing in the Prison
Litigation Reform Act's ("PLRA") exhaustion requirement which provides for the tolling of
the statute of limitations while an inmate pursues his administrative remedies.
Defendant is correct that the PLRA does not provide for the tolling of the applicable
statute of limitations period. However, the PLRA does require that an inmate exhaust
his available administrative remedies before he can file a cause of action in federal
court. It would be inherently unfair for inmates if the applicable statute of limitations
period did not toll while the inmates completed a process which is mandatory before
those inmates can file suit in federal court.
The Court notes Defendant's assertion that, because Internal Investigations is
not a part of the grievance process, a referral to Internal Investigations is separate from

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

a,

and effectively the end of the grievance process. However, this assertion overlooks the
fact that Plaintiff contends that he filed a grievance, and the filing of a timely grievance
could toll the applicable statute of limitations period. Moreover, Defendant's assertion is
devoid of supporting documentation or legal authority.
The Court notes that Plaintiff submitted a printout of his grievance history. This
printout reveals that Plaintiff filed Grievance Number 123257 on June 19, 2012,
regarding physical force. As of January 6, 2015, the status of this grievance is
"forwarded to Internal Investigation", with a date of June 21, 2012. (Doc. No. 41, p. 12).
If this grievance concerns the events forming the basis of Plaintiffs Complaint, the
grievance would have been filed timely. See Painter v. Thomas, et al., CV612-88, Doc.
No. 46 (S.D. Ga.). It is plausible that Plaintiff exhausted the administrative remedies
which were available to him and that the applicable statute of limitations period was
tolled during the time Plaintiff pursued his administrative remedies.
Defendant's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, as supplemented herein, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this //'

, 2015.

ay of

BM7ANT E1DENFIELD, IJDG'
UNITED STATES DIST)
COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

,CT

AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2