Funderburk v. Doe et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 2/2/2016. (c/m 02/03/16 bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ERIC FUNDERBURK,
Plaintiff

*
*

CIVIL NO. CCB-14-2479

V.
*
WARDEN RICKY FOXWELL,
STEPHANIE BATAYNEH,1
Defendants

*
******
MEMORANDUM

Pending is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alterative Motion for Summary Judgement, filed
on behalf of defendants Warden Ricky Foxwell and Stephanie Batayneh. ECF 14. Plaintiff Eric
Funderburk has not responded.2 Upon review of papers and exhibits filed, the court finds an oral
hearing in this matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated
below, the dispositive motion will be granted.
Background
On August 5, 2014, Funderburk, who is incarcerated at the Maryland Transition Center
(“MTC”), filed a self-represented complaint, alleging that on December 8, 2013, while he was
detained at the Baltimore City Detention Center (“BCDC”), he was assaulted by other inmates
over the use of the telephone. ECF 1, p. 3. He claims that although unknown officers took the
names of the assailants and photographs of his injuries, no one was charged with assaulting him.
Id. He states, “A Female Officer called ‘Ms. B’ [subsequently identified by counsel as Batayneh]
1

The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the proper name of defendant Ms. B as Stephanie Batayneh.

2

Pursuant to the dictates of Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975), on May 22, 2015,
Funderburk was notified that defendants had filed a dispositive motion, the granting of which could result in the
dismissal of his action. ECF 15. He was also informed that he was entitled to file materials in opposition to that
motion within seventeen (17) days from the date of that letter and that his failure to file a timely or responsive
pleading or to illustrate, by affidavit or the like, a genuine dispute of material fact, could result in the dismissal of his
case or in the entry of summary judgment without further notice of the court. Id.

1

on A-Shift opened the cell doors for recreation then left the tier thereby failing to protect me from
assault.” Id.
Analysis
Defendants raise the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion and assert that Plaintiff’s
claims have not been properly presented through the administrative remedy procedure and
therefore must be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997e. ECF 14. The Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Applicability of administrative remedies
No 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 exhausted.
42 U.S.C. ' 1997e.
Funderburk is subject to the strict requirements of the exhaustion provisions, and it does
not matter that he alleges injury caused by a single incident, as opposed to general conditions of
confinement. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 528 (2002) (no distinction is made with respect
to exhaustion requirement between suits alleging unconstitutional conditions and suits alleging
unconstitutional conduct). Exhaustion is also required even though the relief sought is not
attainable through resort to the administrative remedy procedure. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.
731, 741 (2001). A claim which has not been exhausted may not be considered by this court. See
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 220 (2007).
Thus, plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed if defendants raise the affirmative defense and
also prove that plaintiff has failed to exhaust available remedies. See Jones, 549 U.S. at 216 – 17
(failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense and inmates are not required to demonstrate
exhaustion in their complaints).

The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is designed so that

2

prisoners pursue administrative grievances until they receive a final denial of the claims,
appealing through all available stages in the administrative process. Chase v. Peay, 286 F. Supp.
2d 523, 530 (D. Md. 2003); Booth, 532 U.S. at 735 (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s claim for
failure to exhaust where he “never sought intermediate or full administrative review after prison
authority denied relief”).
BCDC has established a four-step grievance process. ECF 14-2.

In his unverified

complaint, Funderburk states, “To my knowledge there is not a[n] ARP process at Baltimore City
Detention Center.” ECF 1, p. 2. His statement is belied by the record. While confined at BCDC,
Funderburk filed numerous grievances both before and after the incident. ECF 14-4. None of
these grievances concerned the December 8, 2013 attack. As Funderburk failed to institute, much
less exhaust, remedies as to the allegations contained in this complaint, the complaint shall be
dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, defendants’ dispositive motion shall be granted. A separate Order
shall be entered in accordance with this Memorandum.

Date: February 2, 2016

/S/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

3