Smith v. Starr
- Susan Nelson
- 0:21-cv-02703
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Smith v. Starr, Judge Nelson denied Fellicia Smith’s preliminary-injunction motion because she had not finished the prison grievance process.
Fellicia Smith’s request for an order requiring relief concerning meals that fit her religious needs was denied at the preliminary-injunction stage; the underlying claim was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Smith v. Starr, Fellicia Smith alleged that the Bureau of Prisons was not providing meals that met her religious needs. She asked the court to order the Bureau to provide injunctive relief while her case continued.
Smith had filed prison grievances and appealed an unfavorable response, but her final appeal was still pending when she filed the lawsuit. She argued that misleading responses and delays had prevented her from completing the grievance process.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Smith’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied the preliminary injunction. The court also ordered the clerk to vacate the judgment entered on May 13, 2022.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Starr · No. 0:21-cv-02703
- Susan Nelson
- May 16, 2022
Background
Fellicia Smith, who represented herself, alleged that the Bureau of Prisons refused to provide meals that fit her religious needs. She filed prison grievances and appealed an unfavorable response. Her appeal to the Bureau’s Central Office—the final level in the Bureau’s four-level grievance process—was still pending when she filed this case.
Smith sought a preliminary injunction, which is a court order issued before a final decision requiring or prohibiting certain conduct. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion because Smith had not exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Smith’s Objection
Smith objected to the conclusion that she was unlikely to succeed on her claims. She argued that misrepresentations in the Bureau’s responses and delays by prison officials had thwarted her ability to use the grievance process.
The court explained that prisoners must complete available administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit about prison conditions. An administrative remedy may be considered unavailable if officials make the process a dead end, make it too confusing to use, or prevent its use through misleading conduct, manipulation, or intimidation.
The court found that Smith had not alleged that the Bureau’s responses misled her about the steps needed to complete an appeal or interfered with her access to the grievance process. The record showed that she had filed a grievance, received a response, appealed, and was awaiting a decision on her final appeal. The court also found that slower-than-usual responses did not show that officials had prevented her from using the grievance process.
Ruling
After independently reviewing the record, the court overruled Smith’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It denied Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction because she had not fully exhausted the Bureau’s grievance process when she filed the complaint and therefore had not shown a likelihood of success. The order did not dismiss the underlying claim. It also directed the clerk to vacate the judgment entered on May 13, 2022.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.