×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Administrative Remedies Exhausted Even If Untimely
State Prisoner Ted Poole filed a complaint against the Michigan Department
of Corrections concerning the untimely payment of filing fees. Poole
exhausted his administrative remedies in the prison grievance process which
were denied by prison officials as being untimely. Poole then filed a civil
rights complaint with the district court which dismissed the complaint for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Poole appealed arguing that
the district court dismissed his complaint without ascertaining whether he
had exhausted his administrative remedies.
On de novo review the Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts' judgment
based on Thomas v. Woolum 337 F3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003), which held that when
a prisoner presents his grievance through one complete cycle he has
exhausted his administrative remedies whether or not the prisoner followed
the grievance system's procedural process as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Thomas was unavailable for the district courts'
judgment. The judgment was vacated and remanded. See: Poole v. Jones, 84
Fed.Appx. 602 (6th Cir. 2003) .
of Corrections concerning the untimely payment of filing fees. Poole
exhausted his administrative remedies in the prison grievance process which
were denied by prison officials as being untimely. Poole then filed a civil
rights complaint with the district court which dismissed the complaint for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Poole appealed arguing that
the district court dismissed his complaint without ascertaining whether he
had exhausted his administrative remedies.
On de novo review the Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts' judgment
based on Thomas v. Woolum 337 F3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003), which held that when
a prisoner presents his grievance through one complete cycle he has
exhausted his administrative remedies whether or not the prisoner followed
the grievance system's procedural process as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Thomas was unavailable for the district courts'
judgment. The judgment was vacated and remanded. See: Poole v. Jones, 84
Fed.Appx. 602 (6th Cir. 2003) .
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Poole v. Jones
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 84 Fed.Appx. 602 (6th Cir. 2003) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
TED TYRONE POOLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WENDY JONES, BONNIE FRITZ, and WILLIAM OVERTON, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-1405
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
84 Fed. Appx. 602; 2003 U.S. App.
December 15, 2003, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Eastern District of Michigan. 02-71362. D.P. Hood. 03-10-03.
DISPOSITION: Vacated and remanded.
COUNSEL: TED TYRONE POOLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Ionia, MI.
For WENDY JONES, BONNIE FRITZ, WILLIAM OVERTON, Defendants - Appellees: Kevin R. Himebaugh, Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, MI.
JUDGES: Before: BATCHELDER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; BELL, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States Chief District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*602] ORDER
Ted Tyrone Poole, a pro se Michigan prisoner, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules [**2] of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, Poole sued a prison mail room officer, a prison accounting supervisor, and the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Poole's complaint concerned the untimely payment of filing fees. Although Poole exhausted his available administrative remedies throughout the prison grievance process, the grievances were denied by prison officials as being untimely. Poole then filed a civil rights complaint with the district court. Upon de novo review of a magistrate [*603] judge's report, the district court dismissed the complaint for Poole's failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies.
On appeal, Poole argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint without ascertaining whether he had fully exhausted his administrative remedies.
The district court's judgment is reviewed de novo. See Smith v. Ameritech, 129 F.3d 857, 863 (6th Cir. 1997).
We reverse the district court's judgment in light of this court's recent decision in Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003). [**3] In Thomas, we held that when a prisoner, such as Poole, has presented his grievance through one complete cycle of the prison review process, the prisoner has exhausted his available administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), regardless of whether the prisoner complied with the grievance system's procedural process. Id. at 733. As Poole exhausted his administrative remedies, although untimely, the district court erred in dismissing Poole's complaint. We note that Thomas was unavailable when the district court rendered its decision.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
No. 03-1405
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
84 Fed. Appx. 602; 2003 U.S. App.
December 15, 2003, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Eastern District of Michigan. 02-71362. D.P. Hood. 03-10-03.
DISPOSITION: Vacated and remanded.
COUNSEL: TED TYRONE POOLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Ionia, MI.
For WENDY JONES, BONNIE FRITZ, WILLIAM OVERTON, Defendants - Appellees: Kevin R. Himebaugh, Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, MI.
JUDGES: Before: BATCHELDER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; BELL, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States Chief District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*602] ORDER
Ted Tyrone Poole, a pro se Michigan prisoner, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules [**2] of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, Poole sued a prison mail room officer, a prison accounting supervisor, and the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Poole's complaint concerned the untimely payment of filing fees. Although Poole exhausted his available administrative remedies throughout the prison grievance process, the grievances were denied by prison officials as being untimely. Poole then filed a civil rights complaint with the district court. Upon de novo review of a magistrate [*603] judge's report, the district court dismissed the complaint for Poole's failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies.
On appeal, Poole argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint without ascertaining whether he had fully exhausted his administrative remedies.
The district court's judgment is reviewed de novo. See Smith v. Ameritech, 129 F.3d 857, 863 (6th Cir. 1997).
We reverse the district court's judgment in light of this court's recent decision in Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003). [**3] In Thomas, we held that when a prisoner, such as Poole, has presented his grievance through one complete cycle of the prison review process, the prisoner has exhausted his available administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), regardless of whether the prisoner complied with the grievance system's procedural process. Id. at 733. As Poole exhausted his administrative remedies, although untimely, the district court erred in dismissing Poole's complaint. We note that Thomas was unavailable when the district court rendered its decision.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.