VanSlyke v. Pearl River County et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 3 Motion to Order Administration at PRCJ to Answer Grievances and Administrative Remedy Request, which the Court construes as a request for mandamus relief. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 10/3/17. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JACOB HEATH VAN SLYKE, #189698
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:17CV164-LG-RHW

PEARL RIVER COUNTY, JULIE
FLOWERS, COREY MATAYA, DAVID
ALLISON, SHANE TUCKER,
OFFICER KEENUM, OFFICER
DEVIN, HEATH WAYNE, OFFICER
TYNESNIA, TERRY POE, NURSE
BRI, NURSE BUDDY, NURSE
JESSIE, BRAD SHAW, OFFICER
MITCH, SERGEANT BARTON, ROY
D’ARCANGELO, JR., NURSE ROBIN,
DR. GRAYSON, and DR.
MONTGOMERY

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MANDAMUS
BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Plaintiff Jacob Heath Van Slyke’s Motion to
Order Administration at Pearl River County Jail to Answer Grievances and
Administrative Remedy Request [3], which the Court construes as a request for
mandamus relief. Van Slyke is a pretrial detainee at the Pearl River County Jail,
and he challenges the conditions of his confinement. In the instant motion, he asks
the Court to order the Pearl River County Jail administration to answer grievances
filed by inmates. Van Slyke contends that inmates, including himself, have filed
grievances with the jail administration, but they go unanswered. This, he claims,
prevents him from exhausting his administrative remedies. The Court has
considered Plaintiff’s submission and the relevant legal authority. As set forth

below, the motion is denied.
The federal mandamus statute provides, “The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or
employee of the United Sates or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. In other words, the statute only grants powers over
federal officers. Here, Van Slyke asks this Court to enter a mandamus against
State officials. The Court therefore finds that it lacks jurisdiction to provide the
mandamus relief requested.
Even if the motion were construed as a request for injunctive relief, it would
still fail. First, Van Slyke does not have a protected liberty interest in the
processing of his prison grievances. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5th
Cir. 2005). Even the failure to investigate a grievance, by itself, does not rise to the
level of a constitutional violation. Id. at 374. Second, where prison officials
interfere with a prisoner’s attempt to pursue an administrative remedy, he is
excused from the requirement that he exhaust his remedies. Holloway v. Gunnell,
685 F.2d 150, 154 (5th Cir. 1982). For this reason, the failure to process a prison
grievance cannot form the basis of a denial of access to courts claim. Mahogany v.
Miller, 252 F. App’x 593, 594 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2007). Van Slyke does not have a
stand alone claim for the alleged failure to process his grievance. Therefore, the
motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to
2

Order Administration at Pearl River County Jail to Answer Grievances and
Administrative Remedy Request [3], which the Court construes as a request for
mandamus relief, should be, and is hereby, DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 3rd day of October, 2017.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3