Floyd Johnson v. Charlie Crockett , 541 F. App'x 727 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 13-1759
    ___________________________
    Floyd Dell Johnson,
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    Charlie Crockett, Sgt., Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Billy Straughn, Warden,
    Maximum Security Unit, ADC; S. Outlaw, Deputy Warden, Maximum Security
    Unit, ADC; Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction,
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff
    ____________
    Submitted: October 7, 2013
    Filed: November 14, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Arkansas Department of Correction inmate Floyd Johnson appeals the district
    court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, for failure to
    exhaust administrative remedies.
    Upon careful de novo review, see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 
    598 F.3d 1051
    ,
    1052 (8th Cir. 2010), we agree that, based on the evidence before the district court,
    dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was proper. See 42 U.S.C.
    § 1997e(a) (no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983
    by prisoner until available administrative remedies are exhausted); Jones v. Bock, 
    549 U.S. 199
    , 211, 218 (2007) (prison’s administrative exhaustion requirements govern
    whether exhaustion has occurred; unexhausted claims cannot be brought into court
    or considered). Johnson has submitted additional evidence on appeal, contending that
    it shows exhaustion, but such evidence was not before the district court, so we will
    not consider it. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 
    988 F.2d 61
    , 63
    (8th Cir. 1993). Because the dismissal was without prejudice, we note Johnson is free
    to refile his complaint in the district court, see Schafer v. Moore, 
    46 F.3d 43
    , 45 (8th
    Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissal without prejudice permits plaintiff to refile
    complaint), where he may submit his additional evidence of exhaustion.
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
    Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1759

Citation Numbers: 541 F. App'x 727

Judges: Murphy, Colloton, Gruender

Filed Date: 11/14/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024