Yankton v. Epps et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 29 Final Judgment. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 7/1/14. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
LAVAN YANKTON, SR.
PLAINTIFF
V.
NO. 4:14-CV-34-DMB-SAA
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on the pro se prisoner complaint of LaVan Yankton, Sr.,
who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Yankton has also
conceded that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies – and has moved for the Court to stay
the instant case to give him time to do so. For the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the
Court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. For the reasons set forth below,
the instant case will be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Factual Allegations
Yankton’s claims arise out of allegations that Mississippi Department of Corrections
(“MDOC”) officials will not permit him to grow his hair longer than three inches, the maximum
length permitted under MDOC policy. On one occasion, MDOC officials pinned Yankton down and
forcibly cut his hair when he refused because it violates the tenets of his religion. Yankton’s religious
beliefs forbid him to cut his hair, and he believes that the policy in question infringes upon his
religious freedom under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Although exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, normally to be pled
by a defendant, the Court may dismiss a pro se prisoner case if failure to exhaust is apparent on the
face of the pleadings. Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2007). 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). The administrative remedy program (“ARP”) in place at MDOC facilities,
including the facilities at the Marshall County Correctional Facility, has been approved by this Court
in Gates v. Collier, No. GC 71-6-S-D (N.D. Miss. 1971) (order dated February 15, 1994). A district
court may dismiss a lawsuit if the plaintiff fails to complete the ARP. 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)). The exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional.
Underwood, 151 F.3d at 293-95. However, “[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 887, 890-91 (5th Cir. 1998); Smith
v. Stubblefield, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1170 (E.D. Mo. 1998). A prisoner must exhaust administrative
remedies before filing suit in federal court. Ferrington v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corr., 315 F.3d 529 (5th
Cir. 2002).
“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 his current motion for the Court to stay the present case to permit him to exhaust
administrative remedies, Yankton concedes that he has not done so. For this reason, the instant case
must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of July, 2014.
/s/Debra M. Brown
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?