Logan v. Banks et al
Filing
83
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 82 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 11/5/14. (tab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
COURTNEY R. LOGAN
PLAINTIFF
v.
No. 4:13CV89-SA-SAA
RICKY L. BANKS
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Courtney R. Logan
who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit.
Logan has asserted two claims. First, he alleges that the defendants confiscated his legal materials
when transferring him from the Leflore County Adult Detention Center into Mississippi Department
of Corrections custody, thus denying him meaningful access to the courts. Logan also alleges that the
Mississippi defendants were improperly holding him in county custody – and that he should have
remained in the custody of the State of Tennessee. The defendants have filed a motion [67] to dismiss
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to the claims regarding confiscation of Logan’s legal
materials. Logan has responded [72] to the motion, and the defendants have replied [77]. For the
reasons set forth below, the motion [67] to dismiss will be granted, and Logan’s claims regarding
confiscation of his legal materials will be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In
addition, Logan’s challenge to the legality of his custody with Leflore County, Mississippi, must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. For these reasons, the instant
case will be dismissed in its entirety.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Before a pro se prisoner may proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must exhaust the
administrative remedies available to him. The Prison Litigation Reform Act states, in pertinent part:
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(a). A district court may dismiss a lawsuit if the plaintiff fails to complete the
prison or jail grievance process. Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 293 (5th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 119 S. Ct. 1809, 143 L. Ed. 2d 1012 (1999) (quoting Rocky v. Vittorie, 813 F.2d 734, 736 (5th
Cir. 1987)). While the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, id. at 293-95, “[a]bsent a valid
defense to the exhaustion requirement, the statutory requirement enacted by Congress that
administrative remedies must be exhausted before the filing of suit should be imposed.” Wendell v.
Asher, 162 F.3d 877, 890-91 (5th Cir. 1998); Smith v. Stubble field, 30 F.Supp. 2d 1168, 1170 (E.D.
Mo. 1998). “To hold otherwise would encourage premature filing by potential litigants, thus
undermining Congress’ purpose in passing the PLRA, which was to provide the federal courts some
relief from frivolous prisoner litigation.” Wendell, 162 F.3d at 981 (citations omitted).
In this case, the plaintiff acknowledged in his complaint that he has not exhausted
administrative remedies as to his claims against the Leflore County defendants. Though Logan has
submitted documents showing his attempts to exhaust remedies for various grievances with the
Mississippi Department of Corrections, he has not provided documentation that he initiated a
grievance with the Leflore Count Adult Detention Center. The defendants have, however, provided a
statement from Tyrone Banks, Administrator of that facility, stating that he never received a grievance
from Logan regarding confiscation of his legal materials. In his response to the motion to dismiss,
Logan presents documents regarding two grievances. The first (#WCCF-13-501) involves Logan’s
request to be returned to Tennessee custody – not the status of his legal documents. Though the
second grievance (#WCCF-13-471) involves access to legal documents, it pertains to Logan’s
inability to obtain legal materials from the state of Tennessee during his incarceration in the Wilkinson
County Correctional Facility. The second grievance has nothing to do with the alleged confiscation of
-2-
Logan’s legal materials just prior to his move away from the Leflore County Adult Detention Center.
As such, Logan has not exhausted administrative remedies regarding his claim that the defendants
confiscated his legal materials in Leflore County, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim will
be granted.
Improper Transfer from Tennessee to Mississippi Custody
Logan also complains that he was improperly transferred from Tennessee to Mississippi
custody prior to his trial on Mississippi charges without the opportunity to challenge his extradition in
Tennessee courts. He has since been convicted of multiple offenses in Mississippi and is currently
serving multiple life sentences with the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Logan argues that he
is still illegally in Mississippi custody and that he should be returned to Tennessee custody to pursue
Tennessee appellate and post-conviction collateral relief. In Nichols v. McKelvin, 52 F. 3d 1067 (5th
Cir. 1995) the Fifth Circuit refused to recognize a § 1983 claim arising from alleged violations of the
Extradition Clause and the federal enabling statute. In doing so, the court held:
The plain language of the Extradition Clause reveals that its purpose is to enable the
states to bring offenders to trial as swiftly as possible in the state where the alleged
offense was committed. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 287, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58
L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Thus, we have held that the Extradition Clause confers no rights
on the individual being sought. Id.
The opinion cites Siegel v. Edwards, 566 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1978), which holds that “[o]nce a fugitive
has been brought within custody of the demanding state, legality of extradition is no longer proper
subject of any legal attack by him.” Though Nichols is an unpublished per curiam opinion, it cannot
be ignored, and Siegel has not been overruled. On the other hand, the Fifth Circuit has held that a
prisoner has the right to challenge extradition in a pre-extradition habeas corpus proceeding in the
asylum state (Tennessee, in the present case). Crumley v. Snead, 620 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1980). Neither
party has directed the court’s attention to a Supreme Court case directly addressing this issue.
-3-
It appears that Nichols and Siegel control the decision in the present case. Logan’s complaint
is that the asylum state – Tennessee – should not have given him over to the demanding state –
Mississippi – before he had the chance to challenge his extradition. Under Nichols and Siegel the
actual transfer of Logan to Mississippi extinguished any claims regarding the propriety of his
extradition. Certainly, the court has found no authority for Logan to seek redress against authorities in
the demanding state (Mississippi) in this situation. On the other hand, under Crumley, it appears that
Logan may have a viable claim against authorities in the State of Tennessee for releasing him to
Mississippi custody – without a chance to challenge extradition in Tennessee courts through a writ of
habeas corpus. That issue would, however, be for the federal courts in Tennessee to decide – under
Sixth Circuit precedent. For these reasons, Logan’s claims against the defendants regarding the
propriety of his extradition to Mississippi must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
Conclusion
In sum, the defendants’ motion [67] to dismiss Logan’s claims regarding confiscation of his
legal materials will be granted, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. In addition, Logan’s remaining claims against Mississippi
authorities regarding the propriety of his extradition to Mississippi will be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. This ruling has no bearing on any claims Logan might
have against Tennessee authorities regarding his extradition to Mississippi. The instant case will,
therefore, be dismissed.
SO ORDERED, this, the 5th day of November, 2014.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
CHIEF JUDGE
U. S. DISTRICT COURT
-4-
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?