Mayes v. Valdez et al
Order Accepting 39 Findings and Recommendations. The court overrules Plaintiff's objections, grants Sheriff Valdez's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiffs second grievance and related claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and dismisses without prejudice this claim. The court denies the motion with respect to the other grounds relied upon by the Sheriff, as the court's Local Civil Rules allow the parties to file only one summary judgment motion. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/23/2017) (ykp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DENNIS MAYES, #2062242,
SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ, et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-343-L
On January 11, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending
that the court grant Sheriff Valdez’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) with respect to
Plaintiff’s second grievance for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies and otherwise
deny the motion without prejudice. Report 8. The magistrate judge notes that, although Sheriff
Valdez, originally moved for summary judgment on her defenses of qualified immunity and
exhaustion, she subsequently limited the scope of her summary judgment motion to her exhaustion
defense. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, contending that he exhausted available
administrative remedies with respect to his first and second grievances, which are identical.
Having reviewed the motions, briefs, pleadings, admissible summary judgment evidence, file,
record in this case, and Report, and having conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report
to which objection was made, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court as herein modified. The court
overrules Plaintiff’s objections, grants Sheriff Valdez’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18)
Order – Page 1
with respect to Plaintiff’s second grievance and related claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
dismisses without prejudice this claim.* Instead of otherwise denying without prejudice Sheriff
Valdez’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the court denies the motion with respect to the other
grounds relied upon by the Sheriff, as the court’s Local Civil Rules allow the parties to file only one
summary judgment motion.
It is so ordered this 23rd day of February, 2017.
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Statutory exhaustion requirements are jurisdictional prerequisites to filing suit. Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transp.,
Inc., 826 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2016). When a party does not exhaust administrative remedies, the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. Id.; see also Taylor v. United States Treasury Dep’t, 127 F.3d 470, 475 (5th Cir. 1997) (explaining
that statutory exhaustion requirements are “tantamount to a legislative investiture of exclusive original jurisdiction in the
agency”). Because it is a jurisdictional prerequisite, issues regarding statutory exhaustion are generally resolved early
in the litigation by motion to dismiss rather than by summary judgment, which deals with the merits of claims. Although
the issue was raised in this case via summary judgment, the court concludes that it is appropriate to treat Sheriff Valdez’s
summary judgment motion regarding her exhaustion defense to Plaintiff’s claim based on his second grievance as a
motion to dismiss.
Order – Page 2
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?