Clark v. Revell et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 06/21/17. Mailed to pro se party Craig Randall Clark by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CRAIG RANDALL CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 16-3122-SAC-DJW

SARA M. REVELL, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action. Plaintiff commenced this
action while he was a prisoner in federal custody. By an order entered
on May 10, 2017, the Court directed him to clarify whether he completed
the administrative remedy process. Plaintiff filed a timely response,
and the Court enters the following findings and order.
Discussion
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner must complete
the available administrative remedy procedure before commencing a
federal lawsuit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In order to satisfy this
exhaustion requirement, a prisoner must “use[] all steps that the
agency holds out” in “compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other
critical procedural rules.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90
(2006)(internal quotations omitted). A prisoner “who begins the
grievance process but does not complete it is barred from pursuing
a … claim under PLRA for failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies.” Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002).
As explained in the order of May 10, 2017, a federal prisoner
completes the grievance process by first seeking the informal
resolution of a grievance and then by pursuing a three-tiered formal

grievance procedure by presenting the claims to the Warden, the
Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), and the General
Counsel of the BOP. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13-.15.
As described in the Court’s earlier order, the plaintiff’s
grievance filed with the General Counsel was rejected due to his
failure to provide a copy of the Warden’s response, and he was advised
that he could resubmit the appeal within fifteen days. This rejection
rests on a procedural defect, and plaintiff has not shown that he
corrected it, allowing the General Counsel to address his claims on
their merits. The Court finds plaintiff failed to complete the
administrative remedy procedure and concludes this matter must be
dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 21st day of June, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge