Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the prisoner claims the grievance procedure was effectively unavailable

No question identified. : Lu The Gupteme Couyzr of the Cldired PAIS We/ 9 140 hie BENS. Why VOT MER, ae Mo. Vs. William Qautor2rh, PC 30 1lenf ITT D L000 + GF Dey WCE ait Nel aeu Mhichids , y 0 CC CLAE th 10 7 Gel rls Ole , OT 40, | FOLZS y hd PCGHES ELEY 2 iv Gigapente Couar Rule 29 2 faye gesayed gle Eurcl eed ApMICATIOR TO Cxreud the Tiaté JB Fele Qual CACb? [Hey Fo 700 Abb PLCC AG aty OL! LVERY jP02BON CGiit lt? JO OL Fipved, oy Vep20 1p hd Al CMEC COM IAM AG Shié Mbbve Vecamert~s pat Fle CbMipect GIAIC8 Mil lb IIMY ADO REBbOLY JB PACH OF a hen ANd) bidisb fya6t Claes R097Age j;Ofe PAY: 4 Fhe wane? Ads) Adetess of These senved MIE 46 Follows? L. Guiltk Dt tb. 2,070 Feachhice Gi Wb, Guise Hun Atlanta, 6A — sxsw _—S— i '? . _— Ying Fo. BOKILZF lo 2. CSNTAM I We CMBR Clea ke, U4. Dist Cntr. Gourpeye Orr, F? / Cl" © Cet a RAVAN EL Gap 2, Chek, 4.9. D137 Cower, Sothern Dist P.0, Boxe ¥2Eb SAA LZ eli tiidhera fotwlity OF pPeaesiday thar the Vbicegtiatty (5 Cine Mul! Oareiteer . A) Ceenied Ls. 2026 Lr. COMP ATION tildléi [OOMALT yp OF REA Tbe L/ COM AAMCE BytTh (78 LOG.C. SE4-b iy) Z LOS ony ll tbiie Se, 1 VOLBE tat Vea OM BLT O Prlezuny craser2 thé Cates CF 10 Clute! Brareé oF fimezita rhay rhe VOW G F776 GEMG Yt 40we pyud) Cppaieeer CXCCUTE DM rhie, LEY ay, OF STinté ZEOZS 448 06,20 C70 Ul ly Libs pbey, WE SpA LU CPs CMF Ta, (np Ge 4 [00 200507) MWNlOOf FP. 7). 0, BAIS AN bberifve, GA Bieg/ A PLOLRK 70 Buy Dubscitibech Gefeee wwe 7hus5 S2__ My oF “Pfite—__ 2028 Wet hity fublic tre Orbe Fesay) Auibhe ai zed 7a Almiu/size DAthe Lay, SP eens cot?® * 7On pie > “ay En USCA11 Case: 24-12187 Document: 12-2 Date Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 1 of 3 In the United States Court of Appeals Gor the Eleventh Circuit No. 24-12187 NELSON MICKENS, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, versus WILLIAM DANFORTH, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. Before ROSENBAUM, NEWwsoM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 24-12187 Document: 12-2 Date Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 2 of 3 2 Order of the Court 24-12187 BY THE COURT: Nelson Mickens, a Georgia prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his pro se amended complaint against William Danforth, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mickens now moves for leave to proceed (“LTP”). All prisoners seeking to commence or appeal a judgment in a civil non-habeas action must, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA’), pay the filing fees, regardless of whether they are indigent, or the appeal is non-frivolous. 28 US.C. § 1915(a), (b). Because Mickens has consented to paying the filing fee, the only remaining issue is whether the appeal is frivolous. See 28 US.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). An action is frivolous if it is without arguable merit in law or fact. Bilal v. Driver, 251 R3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). When we make this determination, “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Hughes v, Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted). Here, Mickens could not raise as an issue of arguable merit that the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Mickens does not contest that he did not file a grievance about his health, safety, or threats from other prisoners. Additionally, he did not show how the grievance procedure was unavailable to him, as he had filed a grievance while he was at Coffee State Prison, regarding being placed in the segregation unit. That action showed that administrative remedies were available to USCA11 Case: 24-12187 Document: 12-2 Date Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 3 of 3 24-12187 Order of the Court 3 him, as he had used the process while he was incarcerated at the. prison. Geter v. Baldwin State Prison, 974 F.3d 1348, 1356 (11th Cir. 2020); Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016). Accordingly, this Court now finds that the appeal is frivolous