Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Blackman

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division

January 13, 2018




         This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [22] and related filings in this case brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that the motion be granted, and that this case be dismissed.


         Plaintiff Jesse Jackson, Bureau of Prisons Register Number 09881-003, is currently incarcerated in the Medium Security Unit of the Federal Correctional Complex located in Yazoo City, Mississippi.[1] He has a projected release date of March 29, 2029, via good conduct time. [22-1] at 3. According to the filings, Jackson's claims arise from events which transpired while he was incarcerated at FCI Yazoo Low.

         Plaintiff filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, seeking recovery of damages against Defendants pursuant to Bivens. In sum, Jackson alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment constitutional rights based on a June 2014 power outage, overcrowded conditions, and poor sanitary conditions at FCI Yazoo Low, all of which caused him to suffer mental health and psychological problems. According to the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants are employees of the Bureau of Prisons (ABOP”), as follows: Thomas Kane, Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; Warden Bruce E. Blackman, Warden of the FCI Yazoo Low-Security Unit; and Christopher Curry, who is currently a Unit Manager at the United States Penitentiary at Yazoo City.[2] Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief.

         In response to the Complaint, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. In their motion, Defendants argue, inter alia, that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his claims. For the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice based upon Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.


         Defendants have moved for dismissal based upon Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, Rule 56.[3] Although Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity, ''if it becomes evident that the plaintiff has failed to state or otherwise to establish a claim, then the defendant[s] [are] entitled to dismissal on that basis.'' Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 93 (5th Cir. 1995)(citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231-33 (1991)). As mentioned above, Defendants also assert, among other defenses, that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

         A review of the relevant statutory and case law on exhaustion is instructive. With the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies by prisoners. The relevant portion of ' 1997e states, as follows:

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)(Supp. 2000)(emphasis added). In Booth v. Churner, the Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e requires an inmate to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action with respect to prison conditions, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures. Booth, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1825 (2001). In Porter v. Nussle, the Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Booth when it held that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is mandatory and applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter v. Nussle, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002). Porter informs that:

[o]nce within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in cases covered by ' 1997e(a) is now mandatory. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1490 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). All "available" remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards, nor must they be "plain, speedy, and effective." Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. And unlike the previous provision, which encompassed only ' 1983 suits, exhaustion is now required for all "action[s] . . . brought with respect to prison conditions, " whether under ' 1983 or "any other Federal law." Thus federal prisoners suing under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), must first exhaust inmate grievance procedures just as state prisoners must exhaust administrative processes prior to instituting a ' 1983 suit.

Porter, 122 S.Ct. at 988 (some citations omitted). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recently rejected any attempt to engraft a “special circumstances” exception into the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858 (2016).

         Turning to the present case, Jackson's Request for Administrative Remedy (Attempt at Informal Resolution), or BP-8, dated November 13, 2015, alleged substandard levels of sanitation and unsafe conditions related to a power outage in the summer of 2014.[4] [1] at 20. Jackson also alleged that the facility was overcrowded and overloaded. Id. As a result of these conditions, he argued that he suffered “stress and depression” and “harms and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.