May v. Quintana et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) May's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; (2) DENYING as moot any & all pending motions; (3) action is STRICKEN from the docket; (4) a corresponding judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 12/4/17.(KJR)cc: COR, May (US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
EDWARD P. MAY,
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, ET AL.,
Civil Action No. 5: 17-459-DCR
*** *** *** ***
Inmate Edward May is confined at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
Proceeding without a lawyer, May filed a civil rights Complaint in which he claims, among other
things, that the defendants displayed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [Record No. 1]
The Court will dismiss May’s Complaint because it is apparent that he has not yet fully
exhausted his administrative remedies. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15 (2007) (a district
court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint when it is apparent from the face of the complaint that
a claim is barred by an affirmative defense); Fletcher v. Myers, No. 5:11-cv-141-KKC (E.D. Ky.
2012), aff’d, No. 12-5630 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Because Fletcher’s failure to exhaust, or to attempt to
exhaust, administrative remedies is apparent from the face of his complaint, the district court
properly dismissed Fletcher’s complaint on that basis.”). Indeed, May indicated in his Complaint
form that he only filed a request for an administrative remedy with the Warden and did not appeal
that matter to either the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP’s) Regional Director or General Counsel.
[Record No. 1 at 7] Then, when May was asked why he did not file those grievances, he simply
said, “the administrative process has been compromised, and is not required when the complaints
are for imminent danger.” [Record No. 1 at 9]
Ultimately, exhaustion is mandatory under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, see Jones,
549 U.S. at 216, and May cites no legal authority to excuse his failure to fully exhaust his
administrative remedies. Additionally, while May claims the “administrative process has been
compromised,” he does not explain this assertion in any meaningful way, and he offers no evidence
to support the implication that he was prevented from appealing his grievances to higher levels
within the BOP. Finally, although May suggests that he is in “imminent danger,” he has made this
same claim for over two years, see May v. Quintana, No. 5:15-cv-182 (E.D. Ky. 2015), and he
fails to explain why he has not at least attempted to utilize the BOP’s expedited exhaustion
procedures for sensitive issues. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. May’s Complaint [Record No. 1] is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
2. Any and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
4. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date.
This 4th day of December, 2017.
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?