Fisher v. Primstaller , 215 F. App'x 430 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                        File Name: 07a0073n.06
    Filed: January 30, 2007
    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    No. 05-1026
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    FREDRICK FISHER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                           ON APPEAL FROM THE
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    GEORGE PRIMSTALLER et al.,                                   COURT FOR THE EASTERN
    DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
    Defendants-Appellees.
    /
    Before:          MARTIN, GUY, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
    BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Fredrick Fisher, an inmate at the Southern
    Michigan Correctional Facility, brought this action against several Michigan Department of
    Corrections Officials, alleging that they denied him necessary medical care in violation of the Eighth
    Amendment, retaliated against him for his use of the prison’s grievance process in violation of the
    First Amendment, and conspired to obstruct justice in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
    The district court dismissed Fisher’s complaint based on his failure to exhaust administrative
    remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Applying this Court’s
    existing precedent, the district court specifically found that Fisher’s complaint contained both
    exhausted and unexhausted claims, that Fisher failed to plead exhaustion of each of his claims with
    specificity, and that he failed to plead exhaustion with respect to each named defendant. All of these
    No. 05-1026
    Fisher v. Primstaller, et al.
    Page 2
    failures were considered fatal to his cause of action.
    After Fisher brought the present appeal, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jones v.
    Bock, 
    126 S. Ct. 1462
    (2006), and we held his appeal in abeyance pending the disposition of that
    case. The Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Jones, reversing the relevant precedent of
    this Court on all three exhaustion issues, and holding that (1) “failure to exhaust is an affirmative
    defense under the PLRA, and that inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate
    exhaustion in their complaints;” (2) “exhaustion is not per se inadequate simply because an
    individual later sued was not named in the grievances;” and (3) where a complaint contains both
    exhausted and unexhausted claims, the district court should proceed with the exhausted claims while
    dismissing the unexhausted claims, rather than dismissing the complaint in its entirety. Jones v.
    Bock, Nos. 05-7058 and 05-7142, slip op. at 15-16, 19, 19-23 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2007).
    Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones, we reverse the district court’s full dismissal
    of Fisher’s complaint, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with Jones.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1026

Citation Numbers: 215 F. App'x 430

Filed Date: 1/30/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023