Curry v. MDOC et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 40 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 10/21/13 (dfk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

JAMES CURRY

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13cv76-FKB

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
James Curry brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the
conditions of his confinement in psychological observation at Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility (CMCF). Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss
for failure to exhaust administration remedies. Having considered the motion and
Plaintiff’s response, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted.
The applicable section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. §
1997(e), requires that an inmate bringing a civil rights action in federal court first exhaust
his administrative remedies. Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 1998). This
exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about prison life.” Porter v. Nussle,
534 U.S. 516, 122 S. Ct. 983, 992 (2002). The requirement that claims be exhausted
prior to the filing of a lawsuit is mandatory and non-discretionary. Gonzalez v. Seal, 702
F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012). Defendants’ evidence establishes that while Plaintiff submitted a
grievance concerning the conditions of his confinement at CMCF, it was set aside
because of previously-filed grievances. Plaintiff had failed to complete the administrative
remedies process at the time he filed the present lawsuit. For this reason, Defendants’
motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
A separate order of dismissal will be entered.

So ordered, this the 21st day of October, 2013.

/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE