SANCHEZ v. HASKINS et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 02/28/2018. (ek)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT Of NEW JERSEY

JOHN SANCHEZ,
Civil Action No. 14-3 240 (CCC)
Plaintiff,
V.

$

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SGT. L. HASKINS, et al.,
Defendants.
CECCHI, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on a civil rights Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff

John Sanchez pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (ECF No. 1). Presently before the Court are two

motions to dismiss filed by four of the five named defendants (“Defendants”).’ (ECF Nos. 14,
15). For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
The Complaint raises claims against Defendants regarding an incident during which
Plaintiff was subjected to excessive force. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants either used excessive
force against him or failed to protect him from the use of excessive force. Defendants move for
dismissal, among other issues, on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e. The Court agrees.

Federal law requires that “[n]o 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.”

A fifth defendant, Sgt. L. Haskins, was never properly served.

42 U.s .C.

§ 1 997e(a). In order to exhaust administrative remedies, a prisoner must properly pursue

all administrative remedies to their end. See Spruiti v. Gulls, 372 F.3d 218, 226-27 (3d Cir. 2004).
To determine whether a prisoner has exhausted administrative remedies, the Court must evaluate
a prisoner’s compliance with the prison administrative regulations governing inmate grievances.
See Id. A prisoner must bring a grievance to the attention of the appropriate prison official so that
the facility has an opportunity to respond to the grievance. See Id. at 227. “[T]o properly exhaust
administrative remedies prisoners must ‘complete the administrative review process in accordance
with the applicable procedural rules,’ rules that are defined not by [federal law], but by the prison
grievance process itself.” Smaltv. Camden Cry., 728 F.3d 265, 272 (3d. Cir. 2013) (quoting Jones

v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007)). Excessive force claims are prison conditions claims for the
purposes of

§ 1997e. See Forter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (“{W]e hold that the.

exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general
circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other
wrong.”).
Here, in the Complaint, Plaintiff specifically admits that he has not sought the appropriate
administrative remedies, because “I get placed in lock up, on fabricated D.O.C. reports.” (ECF
No. 1 at 7).

Defendants construe this explanation as stating that Plaintiff did not seek

administrative remedies for fear of being placed in administrative segregation, (ECF No. 14-1 at
14), but the Court construes this explanation as stating that he did not seek administrative remedies
because he was in administrative segregation. Regardless of how the explanation is construed,
however, it is apparent from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative
remedies, and did not provide good cause to excuse the failure—Plaintiff does not explain why
being placed in administrative segregation would prevent him from seeking administrative

2

remedies. As such, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See Ryder v. Bartholomew, No. 15-1851, 2017 WL 5171233, at *2
n.4 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2017) (holding that a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when an
inmate’s failure to exhaust is apparent from the face of the complaint) (citing Ball v. Famiglio, 726
F.3d 448, 458 (3d Cir. 2013)). In the interests of justice, within 30 days of the date of the
accompanying Order, Plaintiff may move to amend the Complaint to show that he has properly
exhausted administrative remedies, or has good cause to excuse the failure.

Date:

Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

3