Coleman v. Stus et al
ORDER ENTERED: The two complaints captioned herein are hereby consolidated by the court. Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of this order to supplement the consolidated complaint to avoid dismissal of the consolidated action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). Signed by Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/29/05. (smnd)
Coleman v. Stus et al
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS JOHN E. COLEMAN, JR., vs. JON STUSS, et al., Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION No. 05-3376-SAC
JOHN E. COLEMAN, JR., vs. JON STUSS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION No. 05-3381-SAC
ORDER B e f o r e the court are two pro se complaints filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a prisoner confined in the Crawford County
Detention Center in Girard, Kansas, seeking damages for the alleged violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. In both
com p l a i n t s , plaintiff alleges a legal document he submitted to jail staff in September 2005 for handling was opened and returned to plaintiff by another prisoner. Having reviewed the factually similar allegations in both complaints, the court finds it appropriate to consolidate the two a ctions. The court further finds a greater showing of
plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies is required to avoid dismissal of the consolidated complaint without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a).
Page 2 of 3
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, signed into law on April 26, 1996, amended 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) to provide that "[n]o 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
See Booth v. Churner, 531 U.S. 956 (2001)(section
1997e(a), as amended by PLRA, requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies irrespective of the relief sought and offered through administrative channels). In the present case, plaintiff states he pursued relief through the facility's administrative grievance procedure and through conversations with facility officers.1 He also states his grievance forms were not answered. insufficient. 1204, 1210 These bare statement are
See Steele v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d Cir. 2003)(pleading requirement imposed by
1997e(a) requires a prisoner to attach a copy of applicable administrative dispositions to the complaint, or to "describe with specificity the administrative proceeding and its outcome"). Because the language of 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) expressly requires full exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to a prisoner bringing a suit in the federal courts, the court grants plaintiff the opportunity to demonstrate his compliance with this statutory
Plaintiff also submits a "grievance" in the form of an affidavit signed by other prisoners, setting forth the factual basis for plaintiff's allegations. 2
Page 3 of 3
The failure to file a timely response may result in
the complaint being dismissed without prejudice, and without further notice to plaintiff. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the two complaints captioned herein are hereby consolidated by the court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of this order to supplement the consolidated complaint to avoid dismissal of the consolidated action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 29th day of September 2005 at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior 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?