The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
SAMUEL BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 3:22CV535
WILLIAM WRIGHT, et ai.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Samuel Brown, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.!
The action proceeds on Brown’s Particularized Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) At all times relevant
to this action, Brown was an inmate at Meherrin River Regional Jail (“the Jail”). Brown asserts
that the Defendants, who are employed by the Jail, violated his First Amendment right. (/d. at 1.)
Specifically, Brown contends that Defendants took the majority of the money deposited into his
prison account and applied it to his housing fees which prevented him from using the funds to
make phone call. (/d. at 1-2.) Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the ground that,
inter alia, Brown failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 19, at 13-14.) Brown
has responded. The Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18), will be GRANTED.
I. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment must be rendered “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
' The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system to the
parties’ submissions. The Court corrects the spelling, punctuation, and capitalization and omits
excessive emphasis in quotations from the parties’ submissions. The Court omits any secondary
citations in the quotations from the parties’ submissions.
56(a). The party seeking summary judgment bears the responsibility to inform the court of the
basis for the motion, and to identify the parts of the record which demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[W]here
the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary
judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file.” /d. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). When
the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by citing
affidavits or “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” /d. (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and
56(e) (1986)).
Defendants asks the Court to dismiss Brown’s claim against them because Brown failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Because the exhaustion
of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, Defendants bear the burden of pleading and
proving lack of exhaustion. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). As pertinent here,
Defendants submitted: (1) the Declaration of Major William Wright, (ECF No. 19-1), and (2) the
Jail Inmate Handbook, (ECF No. 19-2). Brown has submitted a Motion for Leave to File an
Affidavit of Supplemental Claims, (ECF No. 31).
In light of the foregoing principles and submissions, the following facts are established for
the purposes of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. All permissible inferences are drawn
in favor of Brown.
II. Relevant Facts
As noted previously, Brown alleges Defendants violated his First Amendment rights by
taking money from his inmate account and applying it to Jail housing fees. (ECF No. 10, at 1-2.)
The Jail has a grievance procedure for inmates to seek relief for conditions or incidents at the Jail.
(ECF No. 19-2, at 39-39.) The Jail’s grievance procedure requires that, before submitting a
grievance, an inmate must attempt to resolve the issue informally by submitting an Inmate Request
Form. (/d. at 39.) If the inmate is not able to satisfactorily resolve the issue informally, he may
then file a grievance form. (/d.) Jail personnel will respond to the grievance. (/d.) “If an inmate
is not satisfied with the response to his/her grievance they may file an appeal.” (/d.) Brown has
not filed any grievances while at the Jail. (ECF No. 19-1 4 13.)
III. Exhaustion Analysis
The pertinent statute provides: “No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983] 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 language “naturally requires a prisoner to exhaust the
grievance procedures offered, whether or not the possible responses cover the specific relief
the prisoner demands.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738 (2001). Generally, in order to satisfy
the exhaustion requirement, an aggrieved party must file a grievance raising the claim and pursue
the grievance through all available levels of appeal, prior to bringing his or her action to court. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). The Supreme Court has instructed that section 1997e(a)
“requires proper exhaustion.” /d. at 93. The Supreme Court explained that “[p]roper exhaustion
demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules,” id. at 90, “so
that the agency addresses the issues on the merits,” id. (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d
1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002)). The applicable prison rules “define the boundaries of proper
exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). Exhaustion is mandatory, and courts lack
discretion to waive the exhaustion requirement. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002).
The record reflects that Brown failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly,
the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18), will be GRANTED. Furthermore, Brown’s
Motion for Leave to File an Affidavit of Supplemental Claims, (ECF No. 31), will be DENIED as
futile because any new claims fail to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Harris v. Garner, 216
F.3d 970, 981 (11th Cir. 2000). The action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Is/
Date: T Mok □□□ serioe United Sates isfrigt Judge
Richmond, Virginia