Winding v. Dykes et al, No. 4:2012cv00004 - Document 48 (S.D. Miss. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 6/5/12. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff.) (dfk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION JAMES C. WINDING PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12cv4-FKB CHRISTOPHER DYKES et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM & OPINION James C. Winding is a state prisoner incarcerated at East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF). He brought this action pursuant to § 1983 alleging that a prison official retaliated against him by threatened to kill him if he persisted in prosecuting a lawsuit against him. A Spears1 hearing has been held, and the parties have consented to jurisdiction by the undersigned. In his testimony at the Spears hearing, Plaintiff admitted that he has failed to complete the Administrative Remedies Program (ARP) process for this claim. He stated that although he has filed an ARP grievance, the grievance is still in backlog because of the number of prior grievances filed by him which remain pending. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires an inmate to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action with respect to prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e). The PLRA s exhaustion requirement is mandatory and applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Dismissal is appropriate where an inmate has failed to meet the exhaustion requirement. Alexander v. Tippah Cnty., 1 See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Miss., 351 F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 2003). For this reason, this action is dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiff may be pursue his administrative remedies. A separate judgment will be entered. SO ORDERED this the 5th day of June, 2012. /s/ F. Keith Ball ________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
]]>
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.
