Nodarse v. Rose et al
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 59 Judgment. Signed by Glen H. Davidson on 4/2/12. (jtm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
ALEXANDER NODARSE
PLAINTIFF
v.
No.2:10CV143-D-V
JOANN ROSE, ET AL.
.DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Alexander
Nodarse, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nodarse is
a California inmate currently housed at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, a private
prison housing inmates from several states. For the purposes of the Prison Litigalion Reform
Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. Tht defendants
seek [49] dismissal of this case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. For the reasons
set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
DISCUSSION
Nodarse claims that his headphones and CD player were broken and that his legal
documents were taken during a search of his cell. The court must ensure that the plaintiff has
exhausted his administrative remedies with the Mississippi Department of Corrections before
examining the merits of his § 1983 claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Wright v. Hollingsworth,260
F.3d 357 (5 th Cir. 2001). California inmates housed at TCCF were required to complete a three
(3) step process pursuant to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR")
Inmate Resolution procedures. First, the inmate must first file a CDCR Inmate Informal
Resolution Form (14-1OIA). A corrections official will then meet with the inmat~ to discuss his
grievance. A response is given to the inmate regarding his grievance within 10 days. If the
inmate is unsatisfied with the response, he must then file a CDCR Inmate Forma~ Grievance
Form (14-101B) within 15 days of receiving his response. An investigation will be
conducted and a response given to the inmate within 30 days. The response is reviewed and
signed off by the Warden and then given to the inmate. If the inmate is not satisfied with the
response, he may then file a Lost/Damaged/Stolen Personal Property Claim (14-qI). The
Warden responds to the 14-6D appeal. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the Warden's response,
he may then file a InmatelParolee Appeal Form (602).
In this case the plaintiff has not completed the administrative remedy process. Indeed, he
did not even initiate the second step of the procedure described above. As such, this case is
DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A final
judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 2 nd day of April, 2012.
/s/ Glen H. Davidson
SENIOR 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?