Eddington v. Wilson et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is warned filing or pursuing any Frivolous lawsuits may result in (a) the imposition of court costs pursuant to Section 1915(f); (b) the imposition of significant monetary sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; (c) the imposition of an order barring Plaintiff from filing any lawsuits in this Court with out first obtaining the permission from a District Judge of this Court or a Circuit Judge of the Fifth Circuit; or (d) the imposition of an order imposing some combination of these sanctions. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is warned if Plaintif f files more than three actions or appeals while he is a prisoner which are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, then she will be prohibited from bringing any other actions in forma pauperis unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jgb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION

TERRY EDDINGTON #15176
V.
SHERIFF DENNIS WILSON,
et al.

§
§
§
§
§
§

W-16-CA-089-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
At the time he filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff was confined in the
Limestone County Jail. Plaintiff alleges guards and inmates are harassing him. He asks that he be
allowed to “do [his] time peacefully” and be awarded an unspecified amount of monetary damages.1
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

In 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which mandated that
no action shall be brought by a prisoner “until such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Supreme Court subsequently reviewed the 1996 provisions

1

It is clear from Plaintiff’s complaint that he is being assisted by inmates, who have a history
of filing frivolous complaints in this Court and filing complaints without first exhausting their
administrative remedies. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, he is receiving bad “legal advice.”
1

regarding exhaustion and concluded that inmates must exhaust their administrative remedies before
proceeding to federal court. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). The Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that exhaustion is mandatory and is required for all actions brought by prisoners.
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002).
In this case, it is clear from Plaintiff’s complaint that he did not exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing his lawsuit. Plaintiff signed his complaint the same day he signed his
grievance directed to jail personnel and before he received a response to his grievance. While it is
true that exhaustion is normally an affirmative defense, see Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the
Fifth Circuit has held that affirmative defenses may be raised sua sponte when they are “clear from
the face of the complaint.” Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999); Stanley v. Foster,
464 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2006).
CONCLUSION
In this case, Plaintiff’s pleadings make clear that he did not exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing his complaint.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure
to exhaust his administrative remedies.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is warned filing or pursuing any frivolous lawsuits may
result in (a) the imposition of court costs pursuant to Section 1915(f); (b) the imposition of
significant monetary sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; (c) the imposition of an order barring
Plaintiff from filing any lawsuits in this Court without first obtaining the permission from a District
Judge of this Court or a Circuit Judge of the Fifth Circuit; or (d) the imposition of an order imposing
some combination of these sanctions.
2

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is warned if Plaintiff files more than three actions or
appeals while he is a prisoner which are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, then she will be prohibited from bringing any other actions
in forma pauperis unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
SIGNED on April 27, 2016.

ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3