Alonzo Coleman v. Michael Kemna
This text of 83 F. App'x 140 (Alonzo Coleman v. Michael Kemna) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Missouri inmate Alonzo Coleman appeals from the District Court’s 1 dismissal without prejudice of his civil rights action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 626 (findings of fact reviewed for clear error and conclusions of law reviewed de novo), we conclude the District Court properly dismissed the lawsuit because (1) Coleman asserted unexhausted claims based on events taking place after the date of his last grievance, see Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885-86 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (dismissal of entire suit was proper where some of inmate’s claims were unexhausted); and (2) Coleman did not exhaust (or even attempt to grieve) his asserted claims against Crossroads Correctional Center Superintendent Michael Kemna, see Love v. May, 63 Fed. Appx. 282, 283 (8th Cir.2003) (unpublished per curiam) (dismissal for non-exhaustion proper where inmate failed to file claims against director, warden, and assistant warden).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
83 F. App'x 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alonzo-coleman-v-michael-kemna-ca8-2003.