The opinion
Rainwater v . Brown, et a l . CV-03-373-M 02/19/04
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Curtis Rainwater,
Plaintiff
v. Civil N o . 03-373-M
Opinion N o . 2004 DNH 035
James Brown and
Anthony Thibeault,
Defendants
O R D E R
In this suit, Curtis Rainwater, an inmate of the New
Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”), has sued James Brown and Anthony
Thibeault, two NHSP correctional officers, asserting that they
violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts by
interfering with his privileged mail from July 1 8 , 2003, through
July 2 5 , 2003. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is
defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment.
Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds that
plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The PLRA
exhaustion requirement provides:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, 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). To exhaust his remedies, for purposes of
the PLRA, a prisoner must strictly comply with his prison’s
grievance process. See McCoy v . Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 233, 246
(S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citations omitted). When an inmate files suit
without having first exhausted his administrative remedies,
dismissal is appropriate. See Medina-Claudio v . Rodriguez-Mateo,
292 F.3d 3 1 , 36 (1st Cir. 2002).
Here, defendants have produced admissible evidence,
unopposed by plaintiff, demonstrating that plaintiff never
initiated, much less exhausted, his administrative remedies
regarding claims of interference with his mail between July 18
and July 2 5 , 2003. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to
dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim asserting a violation of
his constitutional right of access to the courts.
For the reasons given above, defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (document n o . 11) is granted. Because defendants are
2
entitled to judgment, plaintiff’s motion to amend (document n o .
10) is necessarily moot. The Clerk of the Court shall enter
judgment in accordance with this order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
February 1 9 , 2004
cc: Curtis Rainwater
Mary E . Schwarzer, Esq.
3