Surles v. Andison, No. 09-1825 (6th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseIn 2005, Surles, a prisoner, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Michigan DOC officials confiscated legal papers and computer disks. The district court dismissed without prejudice, finding that he failed to show that he exhausted administrative remedies available through the MDOC grievance process. In 2007, the court denied a motion to reconsider, again because Surles failed to include documentation that showed exhaustion. In 2007 he filed another pro se 1983 complaint alleging confiscation of legal documents; damage or destruction of legal and religious papers and property; actions to deprive him of access to the courts, violation of First Amendment rights; retaliation by false misconduct charges and transfer; and conspiracy. Surles attached eight grievances, filed in 2006, relating to incidents in 2004-2005, all denied as untimely. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the burden was on defendants to show that the prisoner did not exhaust administrative remedies and that they failed to meet the standard for summary judgment.
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.