Martinez v. Cunningham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANDRE MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

-against- 19-CV-10517 (LLS)

ROBERT CUNNINGHAM; LUIS FRANCO; ORDERTO AMEND

B. CLARK; J. DOE; NEW YORK STATE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Mid-State Correctional Facility, brings this pro se

action under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his rights when he was

incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility.By order datedMarch 11, 2020,the Court

granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis

(IFP).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint within sixty days of the date of this order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought

by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been

granted permission to proceedIFP.See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

(2d Cir. 2007).The court must also dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the court is obliged to

construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.2009), and interpret

them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

original). But the “special solicitude”in pro se cases,id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits –

to state a claim,pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.

The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to

state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570(2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the

court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing

the complaint, the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S.at

555.After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must

determine whether those facts make it plausible –not merely possible –that the pleader is

entitled to relief.Id.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action against Robert Cunningham, the Superintendent of

Woodbourne; Luis Franco, the programs supervisor at Woodbourne; B. Clark, a senior postal

employee at Woodbourne; a John Doe defendant identified as the supervisor of the Inmate

Grievance Resolution Committee (IGRC); and the New York State Department of Corrections

and Community Supervision (DOCCS).Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

The facts givingrise to Plaintiff’s claims are not clearly stated. He uses the Court’s

prisoner complaint form but refers the Court to several attached statements, letters, grievances,

and other documents for the events from which his claims arise. The following facts are taken

from the complaint and supporting documents.On June 26, 2015 or August 3, 2015,2 Plaintiff

mailed documents to the “Federal Court of the 10th Circuit,”3 which that court returned.(ECF

No. 2, 36.) But Clark intercepted, opened, and held on to Plaintiff’s returned mail for six months,

in violation of his federal rights and DOCCS directives, finally giving it to Plaintiff on February

8, 2016. When Plaintiff received the returneddocuments,they were not in their original court

envelope and were missing several papers, including his complaint andthe usual court letter

explaining why the documents were returned and providing Plaintiff notice on appealing. When

he complained about the missing papers, Clarke sent him a letter stating that “[n]o mail was

removed from this envelope.” (Id. at 55-56.) Because Plaintiff’s returned documents concerned

the misconduct of postal clerks with respect to his mail at Woodbourne and Mount McGregor

Correctional Facilities, he believes that Clark mishandled his legal mail “for personal benefits

and for the protection against herself and against co-State Clerkemployees against Law Suits

and or accusations.” (Id. at 43.)

Plaintiff submitted a grievance about Clark’smishandling of his legal mail, but after an

investigation the grievance was denied. He asserts that correction officials improperly favored

2 Plaintiff’s papers provide contradictory dates for when the alleged events occurred. For

example, he indicates that papers were mailed to the Tenth Circuit onJune 26, 2015, August 3,

2015, and August 11, 2015.

3 Probablyreferring to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Clark’s false testimony over his. Plaintiffalso wrote letters and sent documents about the matter

to the United States Solicitor General, but he has not received any responses.4

Clark and other postal workers at Woodbourne also mishandled Plaintiff’s personal and

legal mail on several other occasions. Plaintiff and several of his family membersand friends did

not receive letters sent to each other in 2012 and 2013. His letters to Mark Brenner, an attorney,

and Robert Torres, a state-court administrative judge, were not delivered in 2013 and 2014.

Plaintiff sues Clark for mishandling, losing, and delaying his mail, resulting in the

expiration of a statute of limitations and impeding his right to communicate with the outside

world. Her misconduct with respect to Plaintiff’s mail led to his being referred to the Office of

Mental Health for psychiatric counseling to deal with theresultingstress. Plaintiff also sues

Cunningham, Franco,DOCCS, and the John Doe supervisor of IGRC for denying his grievance

against Clark.

DISCUSSION

A. Untimely Claims

Plaintiff’s claims arising fromthe mishandling of his mail appear to be untimely. The

statute of limitations for claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 is found in the “general or residual

[state] statute [of limitations] for personal injury actions,” Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50

(1989). In New York, that period isthree years. See Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 79-

80 (2d Cir. 2002). Claims under §1983 generally accrue when a plaintiff knows or has reason to

know of the injury that is the basis of the claim. Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 518 (2d Cir.

2013).

4 Plaintiff appears to allege that Clark also intercepted and held his mail to the Solicitor

General and others for six months. But a close reading of the papers suggests that he was actually

describing Clark’s actions to each addressee.

Plaintiff brings multiple claims stemming from the alleged mishandling of his legal and

personal mail from sometime in 2012 to February 2016. He delivered this complaint to prison

officials for mailing to this Court on August 21, 2019, more than three years and six months after

the latest alleged event occurred.

Because the failure to file an action within the limitations period is an affirmative

defense, a plaintiff is generally not required to plead that the case is timely filed. See Abbas v.

Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 2007). Dismissal is appropriate, however, where the existence

of an affirmative defense, such as the statute of limitations, is plain from the face of the pleading.

See Walters v. Indus. and Commercial Bank of China, Ltd., 651F.3d 280, 293 (2d Cir. 2011); see

alsoPino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1995) (affirming sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§1915(d) on statute of limitations grounds). A district court should grant notice and opportunity

to be heard, however, before dismissing a complaint sua sponteon statute of limitations grounds.

Abbas, 480 F.3d at 640. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint

that pleads any facts showing that equitable tolling applies.

“Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two

elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary

circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). New York law

also establishes by statute circumstances in which the limitations period may be tolled. See, e.g.,

N.Y. C.P .L.R. §204(a) (where commencement of an action has been stayed by court order), id.

at §204 (where a dispute has been submitted to arbitration but is ultimately determined to be

non-arbitrable), id.at §207(3) (defendant is outside New York at the time the claim accrues), id.

at §208 (plaintiff is disabled by infancy or insanity).

B. Claims against DOCCS

Even if Plaintiff were able to show that the statute of limitations for his claims should be

equitably tolled, his §1983 claims cannot proceed against the New York State Department of

Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS).“[A]s a general rule, state governments may

not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or

unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . .” Gollomp v.

Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh

Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that

are, effectively, arms of a state.” Id. New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment

immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir.

1977). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS are therefore barred by the Eleventh

Amendment and are dismissed.

C. Mail Interference Claims

Plaintiff’s claims regarding his mail arise under the First Amendment.A prisoner’s First

Amendment rights encompass the right to “adequate, effective and meaningful” access to the

courts and to the free flow of incoming and outgoing mail.Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822

(1977); Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003). “[C]ourts have consistently afforded

greater protection to legal mail than to non-legal mail, as well as greater protection to outgoing

mail than to incoming mail.” Davis, 320 F.3d at 351 (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401,

413 (1989)).

Plaintiff’s assertions concerning his mail implicates both an access-to-courts claim and a

general mail tampering claim.

Access-to-Courts Claim

A claim that a prisoner’ s right of access to the courts has been denied may arise from the

frustration or hindrance of “a litigating opportunity yet to be gained.” Christopher v. Harbury,

536 U.S. 403, 412-15 (2002). To state a claim for denial of access to the courts, a plaintiff must

allege facts showing that the defendant’s conduct (1) “was deliberate and malicious,” and (2)

“resulted in actual injury to the plaintiff such as the dismissal of an otherwise meritorious legal

claim.” Davis, 320 F.3dat 351 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Harbury, 536 U.S. at

415; Lewis v. Casey,518 U.S. 343, 350-53 (1996). To demonstrate actual injury, a plaintiff must

allege: (1) a valid underlying cause of action separate from the right-of-access claim; and

(2) frustration or hindrance of the litigation caused by the defendant’s actions. See Harbury, 546

U.S. at 415. A mere “delay in being able to work on one’s legal action or communicate with the

courts does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Jermosen v. Coughlin, 877 F. Supp.

864, 871 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Jones v. Smith, 784 F.2d 149, 151- 52 (2d Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff asserts that Clark intercepted and opened his returned legal mailfrom a federal

court,and delayed giving it tohim until six months later,causing the expiration of a statute of

limitations. Plaintiff’s assertion thatClark acted to protect herself and other correction postal

clerks from accusations and lawsuits may be read as a claim that Clark mishandled his mail

deliberately or maliciously. But although Plaintiff claims that a statute of limitations expired, he

does not say what the claim was, the relief he sought, or any other facts concerning his lawsuit

that would indicate he had a meritorious legal claim that wasaffected by Clark’s conduct.

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for denial of access to the courts.

Because it is not clear that granting leave to amend would be futile, the Court grants

Plaintiff leave to amend to clarify his claim that Clark denied him access to the courts by

frustrating his ability to comply with a statute of limitations. Should Plaintiff amend his

complaint, he must allege facts showing how Clark’s conduct affected his pursuit of a

meritorious legal claim.Plaintiff must specify the dates on which the alleged acts occurred and

show that his access-to-courts claim is timely or that equitable tolling should apply.

If Plaintiff is also seeking to bring access-to-courts claims with respect to his legal

correspondence to other persons, he must also identify the correction employees involved and

describe how each person’s actions hindered his effort to bring a meritorious legal claim.

Mail Tampering

Plaintiff asserts that Clark and other postal clerks have impeded his right to communicate

with the outside world by mishandling and losing his correspondences over a period of years. To

state a claim based on mail tampering, a plaintiff must allege that the incidents: (1) suggest an

ongoing practice of censorship unjustified by a substantial government interest, or (2) have

unjustifiably chilled the prisoner’s right of access to the court or impaired his legal

representation. Davis, 320 F.3d at 351. “[A]n isolated incident of mail tampering is usually

insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”Id.at 351-52.But as few as two incidents of

mail tampering may constitute a First Amendment violationif indicative of “regular” and

“unjustifiable” interference with a prisoner’s mail. Id.at 351;see Washington v. James, 782 F.2d

1134, 1139 (2d Cir. 1986).

Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting that Clark or others interfered withhismail in a

manner that rises to the level of a constitutional violation. His submissions state that postal

workers at Woodbourne mishandledsome of his correspondence.But Plaintiff fails to allege

factsindicatingthat Clark or others have subjected him to regular and unjustifiable interference

with his mail that affected his ability to correspond with those on the outside.

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to allege facts that would suggest a

viable mail tampering claim. He must name as defendants the individuals involved, describe the

alleged violations, and provide the dates when the alleged actsoccurred. Plaintiff must also

allege facts showingthat his claims are timely or should be equitably tolled.

Retaliation

Plaintiff’s assertion that Clark mishandled his mail to protect herself and other correction

postal clerks from accusations and lawsuits could also be generously read as a possible

retaliation claim under the First Amendment. To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a

prisoner must allege facts showing “(1) that the speech or conduct at issue was protected, (2) that

the defendant took adverse action against the [prisoner], and (3) that there was a causal

connection between the protected [conduct] and the adverse action.” Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d

215, 225 (2d Cir. 2014) (second alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). In the prison

context, adverse action is action “that would deter a similarly situated individual of ordinary

firmness from exercising ... constitutional rights.” Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379, 381 (2d Cir.

2004).But prisoners’ claims of retaliation must be examined with skepticism and particular care

because they are “‘prone to abuse’ since prisoners can claim retaliation for every decision they

dislike.” Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996); see Davis, 320 F.3d at 352.

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not give rise to an inference that his engagement in

protected conduct triggered anyretaliatory acts by Clark or any other correction employee

against him. He does notallege any facts that would suggest a connection between Clark’s

alleged mishandling of his mail and his attempts to file a federal court complaint against postal

workers at Mount McGregor and Woodbourne, for example, that Clark had knowledge of his

complaint and opened and held on to his returned mail to stop him from proceeding with his

lawsuit. Plaintiff fails to state a retaliation claim for relief.

Should Plaintiff file an amended complaint and wish to bring a retaliation claim, he must

clearly describe the actions that he characterizes as retaliationand allege facts showing that he

engaged in protected conduct, that Clark or otherstook adverse action against him,and that there

was a causal connection between his conduct and the adverseaction.

Failure to Follow DOCCS Directives

Plaintiff’s also asserts that Clark opened his legal mail without his being presentand

handled his mail contrary to DOCCS Directives. But this assertion does not in and of itself state

a federal claim. See Holcomb v. Lykens,337 F.3d 217, 224 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that state

prison directives do not create liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause); see also

Shakur v. Selsky,391 F.3d 106, 119 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that New York statutes and DOCCS

Directives do not create federally protected due process entitlements to specific state-mandated

procedures).

D. Denial of Grievances

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Cunningham, Franco, and the IGRC supervisor

improperly denied his grievance against Clark by favoring Clark’s false testimony over his.

Courts in the Second Circuit have held that “a prisoner has no constitutional right to a prison

grievance procedure or to have his grievances investigated.” Hayes v. Cnty. of Sullivan, 853 F.

Supp. 2d 400, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (collecting cases); see also Ross. v. Westchester Cnty. Jail,

No. 10-CV-3937 (DLC), 2012 WL 86467, at *8 n.9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2012) (citingFlick v.

Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)). “[I]nmate grievance programs created by state law are

not required by the Constitution, and consequently[,] allegations that prison officials violated

those procedures [do] not give rise to a cognizable §1983 claim.” Harris v. Westchester Cnty.

Dep’t of Corr., No. 06-CV-2011 (RJS), 2008 WL 953616, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted, second alteration in original). Thus, inmates “do not have

a due process right to a thorough investigation of grievances.” Roseboro v. Gillespie, 791 F.

Supp. 2d 353, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also

Torres v. Mazzuca, 246 F. Supp. 2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“The correction officers’ failure to

properly address [the plaintiff’s] grievances by conducting a thorough investigation to [the

plaintiff’s] satisfaction does not create a cause of action for denial of due process because [the

plaintiff] was not deprived of a protected liberty interest.”).

As correction officials do not have a constitutional obligation to provide Plaintiff with

grievance procedures or to perform a thorough investigationof his assertions, his claims

concerning the grievance process are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be

granted. See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to show that his claims are timely or that

the three-year statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. He must also detail his access-to-

courts and mail tampering claims. In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and

plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant named in the

amended complaint. Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants.

To the greatest extent possible, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must:

a) give the names and titles of all relevant persons;

b) describe all relevant events, stating the facts that support Plaintiff’s case including

what each defendant did or failed to do;

c) give the dates and times of each relevant event or, if not known, the approximate date

and time of each relevant event;

d) give the location where each relevant event occurred;

e) describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions violated Plaintiff’s rights and

describe the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and

f) state what relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court, such as money damages, injunctive

relief, or declaratory relief.

Essentially, the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must tell the Court: who violated

his federally protected rights; what facts show that his federally protected rights were violated;

when such violation occurred; where such violation occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to

relief. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the

original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wishes to maintain must be included in the

amended complaint.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on

the docket. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the

standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se

Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended

Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 19-CV-10517 (LLS). An Amended

Civil Rights Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If

Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such

failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

This order will be mailed in chambers.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2020

New York, New York Leis Le Start _

Louis L. Stanton

US.D.J.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CV.

Write the full name of each plaintiff. (Include case number if one has been

assigned)

AMENDED

against: COMPLAINT

(Prisoner)

Do you want a jury trial?

0mNd—MN L1Yes LINo

Write the full name of each defendant. If you cannot fit the

names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please

write “see attached” in the space above and attach an

additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The

names listed above must be identical to those contained in

Section IV.

NOTICE

The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed

with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full

birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account

number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of

an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number.

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

Rev. 5/20/16

I. LEGAL BASIS FOR CLAIM

State below the federal legal basis for your claim, if known. This form is designed primarily for

prisoners challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement; those claims are

often brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against state, county, or municipal defendants) or ina

“Bivens” action (against federal defendants).

L] Violation of my federal constitutional rights

L] Other:

Il. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION

Each plaintiff must provide the following information. Attach additional pages if necessary.

First Name Middle Initial Last Name

State any other names (or different forms of your name) you have ever used, including any name

you have used in previously filing a lawsuit.

Prisoner ID # (if you have previously been in another agency’s custody, please specify each agency

and the ID number (such as your DIN or NYSID) under which you were held)

Current Place of Detention

Institutional Address

County, City State Zip Code

II. PRISONER STATUS

Indicate below whether you are a prisoner or other confined person:

L] Pretrial detainee

L] Civilly committed detainee

L] Immigration detainee

L] Convicted and sentenced prisoner

L] Other:

IV. DEFENDANT INFORMATION

To the best of your ability, provide the following information for each defendant. If the correct

information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the defendant.

Make sure that the defendants listed below are identical to those listed in the caption. Attach

additional pages as necessary.

Defendant 1:

First Name Last Name Shield #

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 2:

First Name Last Name Shield #

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 3:

First Name Last Name Shield #

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 4:

First Name Last Name Shield #

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address

County, City State Zip Code

V. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Place(s) of occurrence:

Date(s) of occurrence:

FACTS:

State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were

harmed, and how each defendant was personally involved in the alleged wrongful actions. Attach

additional pages as necessary.

INJURIES:

If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical treatment,

if any, you required and received.

VI. RELIEF

State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order.

VII. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS

By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the

complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause unnecessary

delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported by existing law

or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual contentions have

evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a

reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise

complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

I understand that if I file three or more cases while I am a prisoner that are dismissed as

frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, I may be denied in forma pauperis status in

future cases.

I also understand that prisoners must exhaust administrative procedures before filing an action

in federal court about prison conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that my case may be

dismissed if I have not exhausted administrative remedies as required.

I agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address. I understand that my

failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my

case.

Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to

proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.

Dated Plaintiff’s Signature

First Name Middle Initial Last Name

Prison Address

County, City State Zip Code

Date on which I am delivering this complaint to prison authorities for mailing: