Willie Scott, Jr. v. Jimmy Coleman, IV, No. 13-3685 (8th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. District court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim against defendant Weekly for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [ May 02, 2014

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3685 ___________________________ Willie Scott, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Jimmy Coleman, IV, Lieutenant, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction; C. Rayner, Sergeant, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants A. Weekly, Deputy Warden, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: May 1, 2014 Filed: May 6, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Following this court s remand for further proceedings on Willie Scott s retaliatory-transfer claim against Deputy Warden Aundrea Weekly, the district court1 dismissed Scott s claim against her without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Scott appeals. After careful review, we agree with the district court that Scott failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not name Weekly in his exhausted grievance as required by prison policy and did not allege retaliatory transfer in that grievance. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218-19 (2007) (prison s requirements define boundaries of proper exhaustion; benefits of exhaustion include allowing prison to address complaints about program it administers before being subjected to suit). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c). -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.