Simmons v. LA. Dept of Public Safety and Correction et al

Filing 56

ORDER : The plaintiff and counsel for the defendants shall, within twenty-one (21) days, submit supplemental briefs to the Court referencing and discussing all relevant authority which may potentially resolve the foregoing conflict as set forth a bove. The 54 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issued on 4/29/2016 be and is hereby VACATED and WITHDRAWN. A new Report and Recommendation will be issued following the submission of supplemental briefs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 5/26/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDWARD SIMMONS (#103371)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
SECRETARY JAMES LeBLANC, ET AL.

NO. 14-664-BAJ-RLB

ORDER
Currently pending before the Court are the parties Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
(R. Docs. 48 and 51). The defendants contend, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s claims are subject to
dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. More specifically, the defendants assert
that the plaintiff’s grievances concerning the underlying claims asserted in the present matter
were rejected, the plaintiff did not complete the administrative remedy process correctly, and his
claims are not exhausted as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). A review
of the record reveals that three of the plaintiff’s grievances were rejected for either containing
multiple complaints or pertaining to disciplinary matters.
Subsection I of the Louisiana Administrative Remedy Procedure provides in pertinent
part, “The ARP screening officer shall furnish the offender with notice of the initial acceptance
or rejection of the request to advise that his request is being processed or has been rejected…If a
request is rejected, it must be for one of the following reasons, which shall be noted on the
request for administrative remedy or on the offender's written letter…(b). There are specialized
administrative remedy procedures in place for this specific type of complaint, such as: (i).
disciplinary matters;…(g). The offender has requested a remedy for more than one incident (a
multiple complaint)…” See La. Admin. Code Tit. 22, PT. I, § 325(I).

The Louisiana Administrative Remedy Procedure further provides in pertinent part,
“Prior to filing a grievance in federal or state court, unless specifically excepted by law, the
offender must exhaust all administrative remedies. Exhaustion occurs…when the grievance has
been screened and rejected for one of the reasons specified in Subsection I, Grievance
Screening.” See La. Admin. Code Tit. 22, PT. I, § 325(F)(3)(a)(viii)(c).
Based on a plain reading of the foregoing, pursuant to § 325(F)(3)(a)(viii)(c), the Code
provides that plaintiff’s grievances were exhausted when they were rejected for the reasons
specified in § 325(I).1 Neither party has briefed the effect of the definition of exhaustion in §
325, the applicability to Plaintiff’s rejected ARPs, or how § 325 comports with the requirements
of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants shall, within twentyone (21) days, submit supplemental briefs to the Court referencing and discussing all relevant
authority which may potentially resolve the foregoing conflict as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation issued on April 29,
2016 (R. Doc. 54) be and is hereby VACATED AND WITHDRAWN. A new Report and
Recommendation will be issued following the submission of supplemental briefs.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 26, 2016.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
At least one Court has applied these provisions to find that a plaintiff’s claims were exhausted upon rejection in the
screening process. In Anderson v. Wilkinson, 2014 WL 992078 (W.D. La. Mar. 13, 2004), the defendants filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required
by the PLRA. Anderson’s grievance was rejected pursuant to § 325(I)(a)(ii)(f) because the request was not written
by the offender and a waiver was not approved. Relying upon § 325(I)(1)(a)(i) and (b), the Court concluded that
because Anderson’s grievance was rejected at the first step, Anderson was not required to pursue the grievance to
the second step. The Court further concluded that upon rejection of Anderson’s grievance by the screening officer
for a reason specified in § 325(I), the grievance was exhausted under § 325(F), and the Court denied the defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment.
1