Michael Mitchell v. Mario Peart , 79 F. App'x 238 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-3508
    ___________
    Michael A. Mitchell, also known as  *
    Klayton Elway Eammelli,             *
    *
    Appellant,             *         Appeal from the United States
    *         District Court for the
    v.                            *         District of Nebraska.
    *
    Mario Peart, Deputy Warden; Unknown *         [UNPUBLISHED]
    Gissler, Unit Manager HU3; Mark     *
    Danner; Teresa Predmore; Sabatka    *
    Rine; Harold W. Clarke, Director,   *
    *
    Appellees.             *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 7, 2003
    Filed: October 21, 2003
    ___________
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    Nebraska inmate Michael A. Mitchell appeals the district court’s dismissal with
    prejudice of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint, wherein he claimed Eighth Amendment
    violations based on his alleged exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). We
    affirm based on Mitchell’s failure to establish administrative exhaustion--an issue
    raised by defendants, but not addressed by the district court--and we therefore
    modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. Cf. McAlphin v. Morgan, 
    216 F.3d 680
    , 682 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (complaint properly dismissed without
    prejudice where plaintiff prisoner “did not satisfy his burden of showing”
    exhaustion).
    Dismissal is required when an inmate has not exhausted administrative
    remedies before filing his lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Johnson v. Jones, 
    340 F.3d 624
    , 627 (8th Cir. 2003). Mitchell submitted no evidence of exhaustion with his
    complaint, and he admittedly had received no response to his most recent ETS-related
    grievance before he filed the instant lawsuit. We decline to entertain Mitchell’s
    arguments about the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and costs, and we deny
    as moot appellees’ motion for summary affirmance.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3508

Citation Numbers: 79 F. App'x 238

Filed Date: 10/21/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023