Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT __‘:_ I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT _ I
ZIIII3 NOV 2L: ID LI: 0`I I
JAMES MCKINNON LI?} DISTRICT COURT N
ERTSONEIRTFORD CT
V. Case N0. 3:O3CV260 (AWT)
THOMAS HUNT and N
JOHN LAHDA R
RULING AND ORDER ,
The plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Cheshire N
Correctional Institution in Cheshire, Connecticut, filed this civil 5
rights action pgp sg and in fgrma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § R
1915. The plaintiff claims that he has an Eighth Amendment right
to one hour of exercise per day. He claims that the defendants I
have denied him the opportunity to exercise for forty—eight days. E
The p1aintiff's amended complaint contains no request for relief, i
but rather refers the court to the body of the complaint. The body 1
of the complaint includes a request for monetary damages.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a), 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." The Supreme Court has held that this
provision requires an inmate to exhaust administrative remedies
before filing any type of action in federal court, seg Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of whether the inmate
I

i Case 3:03-cv-00260-AWT Document 10 Filed 11/24/2003 Page 2 of 3
1 1
may obtain the specific relief he desires through the \
.administrative process. §ee Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741
(2001). This requirement of complete exhaustion of administrative {
remedies must be satisfied before a federal action is commenced. \
eee Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that 1
an inmate may not avoid the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by K
exhausting administrative remedies after filing a civil rights j
action in federal court). 1
The plaintiff’s complaint is dated February 2, 2003, and was j
received by the court on February 6, 2003. On August 18, 2003, the I
court issued an order directing the plaintiff to file an amended {
complaint accompanied by evidence that the plaintiff had exhausted
his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. On 5
September 9, 2003, the plaintiff filed his amended complaint.
Attached to the amended complaint are two inmate request forms
dated January 22, 2003 and January 24, 2003, each from the
plaintiff and addressed to a Counselor Waterford. Both requests
seek information concerning the plaintiff's claim that he had not
been participating in outside recreation for forty—eight days. The
second request includes a response dated January 24, 2003. The
staff member indicates that he or she spoke to Mr. Hunt who
indicated he was unaware the plaintiff’s unit was not participating i
in outside recreation and that he would look into the matter. 1
The plaintiff also attaches a letter from a grievance i
- 2 - I
1



I Case 3:03-cv-00260-AWT Document 10 Filed 11/24/2003 Page 3 of 3
J
I i
I coordinator dated March 24, 2003. That letter references two
grievances filed by the plaintiff concerning "O.S. rec." (ggg I
Attachments to Compl. at 6.) The grievance coordinator notes that I
he or she only received one grievance from the plaintiff and that I
the grievance was denied on February 26, 2003. The grievance l
coordinator did not receive an appeal of that grievance from the _
plaintiff. The plaintiff does not attach any grievances or appeals I
of any grievances. Thus, it is not clear that the plaintiff fully I
exhausted his administrative remedies as to his claim that he was ?
denied outside recreation. In addition, even if the plaintiff had I
alleged that he had appealed the denial of his grievance, based on E
the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the date the plaintiff I
filed his complaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff could not I
have exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this E
lawsuit. I
Accordingly, the amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED without I
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before
filing suit. §gg 28 U.S.C. § l997e(a). The plaintiff may refile I
this action after he exhausts his administrative remedies. I
SO ORDERED this j&j¥&day of November 2003, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
United States District Judge
I
- 3 -