Walker v. Zenk , 217 F. App'x 170 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-15-2007
Walker v. Zenk
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-3298
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Walker v. Zenk" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1623.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1623
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 03-3298
____________
JEFFREY A. WALKER,
Appellant
v.
MICHAEL A. ZENK; K. BITTENBENDER;
DAVID M. RARDIN; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER;
SANCHEZ; LITCHARD; GEORGE WATSON;
TERRY BAM; ROBIN GREGG
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 01-cv-01644)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 12, 2006
Before: FISHER, GREENBERG and LOURIE,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 15, 2007)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable Alan D. Lourie, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal
Circuit, sitting by designation.
Jeffrey A. Walker appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his Complaint.
The Complaint included Bivens claims under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments.
The District Court dismissed the Complaint because it determined that the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), required total exhaustion of
administrative remedies, and Walker had not exhausted all of his administrative remedies
for all of his claims. We held this case c.a.v. pending the Supreme Court’s decision in
Jones v. Bock, -- U.S.--, 2007 WL 135890 (Jan. 22, 2007).
In Jones, the Supreme Court addressed whether the PLRA required total
exhaustion of administrative remedies as to all claims. Id. at *13-16. The Supreme Court
held that an inmate’s complaint under the PLRA should not be dismissed when the inmate
exhausted his administrative remedies for some of his claims, but not all. Id. According
to Jones, the District Court should have considered the claims that were exhausted, and
dismissed only the unexhausted claims. Therefore, we will vacate the District Court’s
decision and remand for proceedings consistent with Jones.
2