Smith v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: procedure they claim Plaintiff failed to follow. Defendants are ORDERED to file their response, including but not limited to, a copy of the written regulations and prison grievance policies and procedures; a copy of the procedure they provided to Plaintiff; copies of all grievances filed by Plaintiff; the written resolutions to those grievances; and any appeals from adverse decisions by the prison Grievance Board, with the Court on or before Friday, June 22, 2012. In summary, should Defendants wish to rely on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, they SHALL supplement the record, on or before June 22, 2012, with proof demonstrating Plaintiff has actually failed to exhaust his administrat ive remedies. If they choose not to pursue the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, they SHALL notify the Court immediately upon making that determination, but no later than June 22, 2012. Plaintiff SHALL file any reply to Defendants response to this order on or before Monday, July 16, 2012. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 5/21/2012. (BJL) Mailed to Eric Dewayne Smith.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
ERIC DEWAYNE SMITH
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, WARDEN JENNINGS,
UNIT MANAGER JONES,
BRENDA BARBER, and C/O UPSHAW,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-121
Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Eric Dewayne Smith (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the Corrections Corporation of
American-Silverdale (“CCA-Silverdale”), has filed a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Court File No. 1). Defendants Corrections Corporation of American (“CCA”),
Warden Paul L. Jennings (Warden Jennings), James Edward Jones (“Jones”), and Brenda Barber
(“Barber”) have filed their answer to Plaintiff's complaint raising the affirmative defense that
Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), i.e., 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (Court File Nos. 5, 13). Specifically,
as their sixth defense Defendants contend and allege that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust the
administrative remedies available to him before filing this action against Defendants (Court File
Nos. 5, 13, pp. 2).
The PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners
to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). In Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Supreme Court held that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an
affirmative defense under the PLRA, and inmates are not required to plead or demonstrate

exhaustion in their complaints. Id. at 211-212. Thus, the burden is on a defendant to plead and
prove the prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Court also held “that
exhaustion is not per se inadequate simply because an individual later sued was not named in the
grievances.” Id. at 923. Finally, the Supreme Court held that a complaint containing both exhausted
and unexhausted claims should not be dismissed in its entirety but rather, the district court should
proceed with the exhausted claims while dismissing the unexhausted claims. Id. at 218-23.
As the Supreme Court observed, the PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner
complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. In that
vein, and in order to conserve judicial resources and time, and to narrow the issues for trial, the
Court will require Defendants to submit proof, at this time, to support their affirmative defense that
Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies. If there has been a final administrative
decision on Plaintiff’s grievance(s), Defendants shall provide a copy of it to this Court as part of
their response.
Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to submit proof to support their affirmative
defense that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies. Defendants SHALL submit a copy of the
relevant written regulations of CCA’s grievance policies and procedures, a copy of the document
they provided to Plaintiff explaining what procedure he must follow to file a grievance, along with
a detailed explanation of the grievance procedure Plaintiff and Defendants followed. In addition,
copies of all grievances, appeals, and responses involving Plaintiff’s claims SHALL be submitted
to the Court. Defendants’ response SHALL include an explanation of the standard procedures for

processing inmate grievances, including all available appeals, and specifically noting what

2

procedure they claim Plaintiff failed to follow.
Defendants are ORDERED to file their response, including but not limited to, a copy of the
written regulations and prison grievance policies and procedures; a copy of the procedure they
provided to Plaintiff; copies of all grievances filed by Plaintiff; the written resolutions to those
grievances; and any appeals from adverse decisions by the prison Grievance Board, with the Court
on or before Friday, June 22, 2012.
In summary, should Defendants wish to rely on failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
they SHALL supplement the record, on or before June 22, 2012, with proof demonstrating Plaintiff
has actually failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. If they choose not to pursue the
affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, they SHALL notify the Court
immediately upon making that determination, but no later than June 22, 2012. Plaintiff SHALL
file any reply to Defendants’ response to this order on or before Monday, July 16, 2012.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3