Khalil v. Department of Corrections ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Case: 23-30026         Document: 00516813659             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/07/2023
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    ____________
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 23-30026
    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
    ____________                                     July 7, 2023
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Ashraf Khalil,                                                                      Clerk
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Department of Corrections; Dustin Bickham; Patricia
    Williams,
    Defendants—Appellees.
    ______________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 3:21-CV-466
    ______________________________
    Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam: *
    Ashraf Khalil, former Louisiana prisoner # 729221, appeals the
    district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil rights
    complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42
    U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Khalil contends that the district court erred by sua sponte
    dismissing his complaint because it relied on information elicited by the form
    _____________________
    *
    This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
    Case: 23-30026        Document: 00516813659         Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/07/2023
    No. 23-30026
    § 1983 complaint in determining that he failed to exhaust his claims. He also
    argues that the district court erred by failing to consider his allegation that he
    could not exhaust administrative remedies regarding the instant claims due
    to the inadequacies in the prison administrative review process.
    This court reviews a district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust
    administrative remedies de novo. Coleman v. Sweetin, 
    745 F.3d 756
    , 763 (5th
    Cir. 2014). Although it appears that Khalil is no longer in custody, his appeal
    is not moot to the extent his suit seeks monetary damages. See Cruz v. Estelle,
    
    497 F.2d 496
    , 499 (5th Cir. 1974).
    As the district court concluded, Khalil was required under § 1997e(a)
    of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to exhaust administrative
    remedies before filing suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 
    549 U.S. 199
    , 202 (2007). However, in Jones, 
    549 U.S. at 216
    , the Supreme Court held
    that an inmate’s failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA
    and that “inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate
    exhaustion in their complaints.” Furthermore, “a district court cannot by
    local rule sidestep Jones by requiring prisoners to affirmatively plead
    exhaustion.” Carbe v. Lappin, 
    492 F.3d 325
    , 328 (5th Cir. 2007). We have
    interpreted Jones and Carbe to prohibit using form complaints to elicit
    exhaustion information from prisoners. See Coleman, 
    745 F.3d at
    763 n.5
    (citing cases); see also Torns v. Miss. Dep’t of Corrs., 
    301 F. App’x 386
    , 389
    (5th Cir. 2008).
    While the district court acknowledged the holding in Jones, the
    district court nonetheless relied upon Khalil’s responses to the form
    complaint’s questions to determine that his claims were unexhausted. The
    district court therefore erred by sua sponte dismissing Khalil’s complaint for
    failure to exhaust.
    2
    Case: 23-30026    Document: 00516813659        Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/07/2023
    No. 23-30026
    We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and
    REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    3