Smith v. Starr

Background

Fellicia Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that the Bureau of Prisons violated her constitutional rights by refusing to provide meals that fit her religious needs. She first pursued the Bureau of Prisons’ internal grievance process. After receiving an unfavorable response, she appealed to the Bureau’s Central Office. That appeal was still pending when she filed this action.

Smith sought a preliminary injunction, an extraordinary court order issued before final judgment. The magistrate judge recommended denying that request, concluding that Smith was unlikely to succeed because she had not completed the required administrative process and that the other preliminary-injunction factors also weighed against relief. Smith objected to that recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation independently because Smith made a specific objection. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, or PLRA, a prisoner generally may not bring an action about prison conditions until available administrative remedies have been exhausted. The court explained that exhaustion is mandatory, but that prisoners need only use remedies that are actually available.

The Bureau of Prisons uses a four-level grievance procedure, with an appeal to the Central Office as the final level. Because Smith’s Central Office appeal remained pending when she filed her complaint, the court concluded that she had not fully exhausted her administrative remedies. The court also rejected Smith’s argument that the process was unavailable. She had been able to file a grievance and appeal the response, and she did not allege that misleading statements caused her to take the wrong steps or prevented her from accessing the process. The court likewise found that slower-than-usual responses did not, on these facts, prevent her from using the grievance system.

Because Smith had not exhausted the available grievance process when she filed suit, the court found that she was unlikely to succeed on the merits for purposes of preliminary relief. The court therefore did not grant the requested injunction.

Disposition

The court overruled Smith’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and denied Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The order did not state that the underlying action was dismissed.