Khalil v. Department of Corrections ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30026 Document: 00516813659 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-30026
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 7, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Ashraf Khalil, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Department of Corrections; Dustin Bickham; Patricia
Williams,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:21-CV-466
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Ashraf Khalil, former Louisiana prisoner # 729221, appeals the
district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Khalil contends that the district court erred by sua sponte
dismissing his complaint because it relied on information elicited by the form
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30026 Document: 00516813659 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 23-30026
§ 1983 complaint in determining that he failed to exhaust his claims. He also
argues that the district court erred by failing to consider his allegation that he
could not exhaust administrative remedies regarding the instant claims due
to the inadequacies in the prison administrative review process.
This court reviews a district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies de novo. Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 763 (5th
Cir. 2014). Although it appears that Khalil is no longer in custody, his appeal
is not moot to the extent his suit seeks monetary damages. See Cruz v. Estelle,
497 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1974).
As the district court concluded, Khalil was required under § 1997e(a)
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to exhaust administrative
remedies before filing suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199, 202 (2007). However, in Jones, 549 U.S. at 216, the Supreme Court held
that an inmate’s 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.” Furthermore, “a district court cannot by
local rule sidestep Jones by requiring prisoners to affirmatively plead
exhaustion.” Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2007). We have
interpreted Jones and Carbe to prohibit using form complaints to elicit
exhaustion information from prisoners. See Coleman, 745 F.3d at 763 n.5
(citing cases); see also Torns v. Miss. Dep’t of Corrs., 301 F. App’x 386, 389
(5th Cir. 2008).
While the district court acknowledged the holding in Jones, the
district court nonetheless relied upon Khalil’s responses to the form
complaint’s questions to determine that his claims were unexhausted. The
district court therefore erred by sua sponte dismissing Khalil’s complaint for
failure to exhaust.
2
Case: 23-30026 Document: 00516813659 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 23-30026
We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and
REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
3