Joseph Emil Klug v. R Rivera, No. 16-12862 (11th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-12862 Date Filed: 01/09/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-12862 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00059-MP-EMT JOSEPH EMIL KLUG, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus R RIVERA, PSY D Somp Coordinator, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (January 9, 2017) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-12862 Date Filed: 01/09/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Joseph Emil Klug appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal of his complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Klug’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. § 1997e. We affirm. The district court did not err by sua sponte dismissing Klug’s complaint that the Inmate Handbook for the Sex Offender Management Program contains overbroad and vague prohibitions of certain materials. Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Id. § 1997e(a). The Bureau of Prisons provides an administrative process to remedy prisoner complaints, and Klug alleged that he had failed to exhaust that administrative process before filing his complaint. The district court was required to dismiss Klug’s complaint, “even if the relief offered by that program d[id] not appear to be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.” See Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 1998). Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Klug may refile his complaint. And the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Klug’s request for injunctive relief, which is available “only if the moving party [can] show[] that . . . [he] has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000). We AFFIRM the dismissal of Klug’s complaint without prejudice. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
