Rainwater v. Brown, et al.

2004 DNH 035

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: February 19, 2004
• Docket: CV-03-373-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rainwater v . Brown, et a l . CV-03-373-M 02/19/04 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Curtis Rainwater, Plaintiff

v. Civil N o . 03-373-M Opinion N o . 2004 DNH 035 James Brown and Anthony Thibeault, Defendants

O R D E R

In this suit, Curtis Rainwater, an inmate of the New

Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”), has sued James Brown and Anthony

Thibeault, two NHSP correctional officers, asserting that they

violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts by

interfering with his privileged mail from July 1 8 , 2003, through

July 2 5 , 2003. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is

defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment.

Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds that

plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as

required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The PLRA

exhaustion requirement provides: No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). To exhaust his remedies, for purposes of

the PLRA, a prisoner must strictly comply with his prison’s

grievance process. See McCoy v . Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 233, 246

(S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citations omitted). When an inmate files suit

without having first exhausted his administrative remedies,

dismissal is appropriate. See Medina-Claudio v . Rodriguez-Mateo,

292 F.3d 3 1 , 36 (1st Cir. 2002).

Here, defendants have produced admissible evidence,

unopposed by plaintiff, demonstrating that plaintiff never

initiated, much less exhausted, his administrative remedies

regarding claims of interference with his mail between July 18

and July 2 5 , 2003. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to

dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim asserting a violation of

his constitutional right of access to the courts.

For the reasons given above, defendants’ motion for summary

judgment (document n o . 11) is granted. Because defendants are

2 entitled to judgment, plaintiff’s motion to amend (document n o .

10) is necessarily moot. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment in accordance with this order and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

February 1 9 , 2004

cc: Curtis Rainwater Mary E . Schwarzer, Esq.