Opinion
Civil No. 04-52-MO.
June 7, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff Benjamin DeHaan, an inmate housed at the Snake River Correctional Institution, brings Section 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act claims against various prison officials. For the reasons briefly outlined below, the court dismisses plaintiff's claims without prejudice.
I.
The following alleged facts are taken from plaintiff's complaint. In 1998 prison medical personnel told plaintiff he was losing his hearing. Personnel thus advised plaintiff he could purchase hearing aids; prison officials also equipped the television he watched with closed captioning. In 1999 plaintiff was transferred (from an unnamed institution) to Snake River Correctional Institution. Since being transferred to Snake River, plaintiff's hearing has steadily deteriorated.
In November 2003 plaintiff asked a Snake River correctional officer, a Mr. Curtis, to install closed captioning on the daytime television but Curtis refused to do so. Curtis told plaintiff that he could not have access to closed captioning because he was listed as "hearing loss," rather than "hearing impaired." On that same November day, Curtis in an allegedly malicious way took fruit from plaintiff's kosher tray. Plaintiff additionally alleges that since 1998 defendants have failed to provide him with hearing aids.
Based on these allegations plaintiff alleges defendants have violated his constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff asks the court to enter an order requiring officials to install close captioning on the televisions he watches and provide him with hearing aids. Plaintiff also seeks millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
On March 23, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
II.
Defendants argue that, because plaintiff is a prisoner, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA") governs his lawsuit. SeePorter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 522-23 (2002) (discussing PLRA). The PLRA sets forth an exhaustion requirement:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under Section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This requirement applies to "all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong." Porter, 534 U.S. at 532. Even when an inmate seeks relief unavailable in administrative proceedings, including money damages, the PLRA nevertheless requires exhaustion before filing a lawsuit. Id. at 524. The PLRA's stringent exhaustion requirement furthers important goals: "to promote administrative redress, filter out groundless claims, and foster better prepared litigation of claims aired in court."Id. In addition, although internal grievance procedures may lack the capacity to grant fully an inmate's requested relief, "corrective action taken in response to an inmate's grievance might improve prison administration and satisfy the inmate, thereby obviating the need for litigation." Id.
III.
Plaintiff has in the past filed numerous grievances which have no bearing on the claims he asserts in this case. He, however, did file an administrative grievance complaining about defendants' refusal to provide a television with closed captioning and their alleged discrimination against him based on his hearing impairment. In response, Snake River's superintendent, Jean Hill, sent a written response to plaintiff stating that there had been an error regarding plaintiff's access to closed captioning television and that plaintiff would thus have access to closed captioning television. But the written response also stated there was insufficient evidence to support plaintiff's allegation of discrimination. The response informed plaintiff he could take advantage of an additional level of administrative review if he were dissatisfied with Hill's findings. It is undisputed plaintiff did not further appeal those findings. It also is undisputed plaintiff did not appeal administratively his complaints regarding hearing aids and Curtis's taking plaintiff's fruit.Given that plaintiff has not pursued all available administrative avenues, the court must dismiss his lawsuit. Although administrative procedures likely could not satisfy fully plaintiff's prayer for relief, the PLRA establishes a rigid exhaustion requirement which this court must enforce. The court, therefore, dismisses plaintiff's claims without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.