Winding v. Lewis et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 6/5/12. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (dfk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES C. WINDING
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12cv3-FKB
A. LEWIS, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM & OPINION
James C. Winding is a state prisoner incarcerated at East Mississippi Correctional
Facility (EMCF). He brought this action pursuant to § 1983 alleging that a prison officer,
A. Lewis, violated his rights on December 26, 2011, by allowing six gang members to
question him aT knife-point. A Spears1 hearing has been held, and the parties have
consented to jurisdiction by the undersigned.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires an inmate to exhaust
administrative remedies before bringing an action with respect to prison conditions. 42
U.S.C. § 1997(e). The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is mandatory and “applies to all
inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular
episodes.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). In his testimony at the Spears
hearing, Plaintiff admitted that he has failed to complete EMCF’s Administrative Remedies
Program (ARP) process for this claim. He stated that although he has filed an ARP
grievance based upon this incident, that grievance remains in “backlog” because of the
number of pending grievances filed by him.
1
See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
Dismissal is appropriate where an inmate has failed to meet the exhaustion
requirement. Alexander v. Tippah Cnty., Miss., 351 F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 2003). For this
reason, this action is dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiff may complete the
prison’s ARP process. A separate judgment will be entered.
SO ORDERED this the 5th day of June, 2012.
/s/ F. Keith Ball
________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?