Collins v. Jones et al
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan that plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice on plaintiff's motion ; finding as moot 25 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 38 Motion to Dismiss (Re: 1 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRUCE LYNN COLLINS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JUSTIN JONES, Director;
)
GREG PROVINCE, Warden;
)
STEVE MOLES, Unit Manager;
)
CHERRY BANKSTA, Property Officer, )
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 10-CV-0352-CVE-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
On June 1, 2010, Plaintiff, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed a civil rights complaint (Dkt.
# 1). On October 6, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. # 25), along with a Special Report (Dkt. # 26). Plaintiff filed a response
to both the motion to dismiss and the Special Report (Dkt. ## 33, 34). Defendants filed a reply (Dkt.
# 37). On December 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Notice to the Court and Request to Dismiss the Case
Without Prejudice in Order to Exhaust the Misconduct Findings” (Dkt. # 38). Defendants filed a
response (Dkt. # 39) in support of Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below,
the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss shall be granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in
the alternative, motion for summary judgment shall be declared moot.
BACKGROUND
The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Dick Conner Correctional Center
(“DCCC”), located in Hominy, Oklahoma. In his complaint (Dkt. # 1), Plaintiff identifies two (2)
claims, as follows:
Count I:
Violation U.S.C.A. Const. Fifth Amendment. Defendants violate [sic] my
right to remain silent during questioning by the FBI.
Count II:
Personal property. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by seizing various
law books and documents.
(Dkt. # 15). In support of his first claim, Plaintiff alleges that on December 8, 2009, two FBI agents
came to DCCC and attempted to question him about a legal document bearing a forged signature
of a Federal Judge. Id. Plaintiff claims he was read his rights under Miranda and that he invoked
his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Id. He further claims that the FBI agents and Unit
Manager Steve Moles attempted to coerce him by referencing his upcoming parole consideration
and threatening to issue a misconduct “for refusing to cooperate with the FBI.”1 Id. As to his second
claim, Plaintiff asserts that on December 24, 2009, he was transferred to Cimarron Correctional
Facility (“CCF”). However, certain items of personal property, including “assorted books and legal
notebook materials, radio walkman,” were not transferred with him and were destroyed by
Defendant Cherry Banksta. Id. Based on those allegations, Plaintiff claims he was deprived of his
personal property without due process.
He also alleges that in August of 2009, he was
“dismissed/fired” from his prison job because Defendants Province and Moles became aware that
1
In their Special Report (Dkt. # 26), Defendants state that on December 10, 2009, Defendant
Moles wrote an offense report for refusing to cooperate with the investigation. As of the date of the
Special Report, there was no record that Plaintiff has received a hearing or been sanctioned based
on the offense report. Id.
2
he was preparing to file a “grievance/complaint” against them. Id. In his request for relief, Plaintiff
asks for “compensatory and punitive damages in excess $35,000.” Id.
In response to the complaint, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 25), asserting three (3) bases for dismissal or entry of
summary judgment, as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim fails as a matter of law
because his statements were not used against him in a criminal case, (2) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment claim fails because he had an adequate post-deprivation state remedy for his loss of
personal property, and (3) Plaintiff has not exhausted administrative remedies as to his claim of
retaliatory removal from his prison job. See Dkt. # 25. In response to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff
alleges that on October 18, 2010, approximately 10 months after his meeting with the FBI and 4
months after commencing this action, he was found guilty of failure to cooperate with an
investigation, a Class A misconduct. See Dkt. # 33. In reply, Defendants claim, inter alia, that (1)
any challenge by Plaintiff to the misconduct amounts to a challenge to his ongoing incarceration and
is barred by the holding of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), (2) that Plaintiff has failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies for any claim challenging the misconduct as provided in OP060125, “Department Inmate Disciplinary Procedures,” and (3) that he has failed to follow
procedures to fully exhaust administrative remedies for his claim based on loss of personal property
as provided in OP-090124.
On December 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this case without prejudice in
order to exhaust administrative remedies as to the challenged misconduct. See Dkt. # 38. In his
motion, Plaintiff requests dismissal of the instant action so that his can exhaust state remedies
“concerning the main issue herein complained of (the retaliation for invoking his rights to remain
3
silent during questioning).” Id. (emphasis in original). He does not address Defendants’ assertions
that he has also failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his claims challenging destruction
of his personal property and alleging retaliatory dismissal from a prison job. Defendants filed a
response supporting Plaintiff’s request for dismissal. See Dkt.# 39.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), “[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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This provision 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.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Moreover,
exhaustion of administrative remedies under the PLRA is required for all inmates seeking relief in
federal district court regardless of the type of relief available under the institutional administrative
procedure. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The
statutory exhaustion requirement is mandatory, and this Court is not authorized to dispense with it.
See Beaudry v. Corr. Corp. of America, 331 F.3d 1164, 1167 n.5 (10th Cir. 2003). There is no
futility exception to § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6 (“[W]e stress
the point . . . that we will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements
where Congress has provided otherwise.”).
To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, an inmate must comply “with an agency’s deadlines
and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without
imposing some orderly structure on the course of is proceedings.” Ngo, 548 U.S. at 90-91. As a
4
result, “the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion.” Id. at 93; see also Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002). When a
prisoner’s claim has been rejected by prison authorities on procedural grounds, that claim “should
be dismissed from the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.” Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269,
1290 (10th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th
Cir. 2008).
In his motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 38), Plaintiff acknowledges that he has failed to exhaust
administrative remedies as to any claim challenging the misconduct.2 In addition, there is support
in the record for Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff has failed to complete the exhaustion of
administrative remedies for his claim concerning destruction of personal property. See Dkt. # 26,
attachments 3, 4, 5, and 6. Lastly, Plaintiff has not controverted Defendants’ evidence demonstrating
that he failed exhausted administrative remedies for his retaliatory discharge claim. See Dkt. # 25,
Ex. 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s voluntary motion to dismiss shall be granted. This action shall be
dismissed without prejudice on Plaintiff’s motion. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, motion for summary judgment shall be declared moot.
2
As noted by Defendants, the complaint (Dkt. # 1) does not include a claim challenging the
misconduct, entered after commencement of this action. In addition, Plaintiff is advised that he is
not entitled to damages on a challenge to the misconduct unless he demonstrates that the misconduct
finding has been set aside. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (holding that “[A]
state prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘a judgment in favor
of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,’ unless the
prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated”); Edwards
v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645, 648 (1997) (extending holding of Heck to prison disciplinary actions).
5
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s voluntary motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 38) is granted.
2.
Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1) is dismissed without prejudice on Plaintiff’s motion.
3.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #
25) is declared moot.
4.
This is a final Order. A separate Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants.
DATED this 15th day of April, 2011.
6
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?