[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-14971 APRIL 17, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00075-CV-4
BENJAMIN R. SINGLETON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
Defendants,
JEFFREY JOHNSON,
Sergeant, Transport Officer,
Georgia State Prison,
DOUGLAS FRANKS,
JANE DOE,
Nurses, Georgia State Prison,
DARLENE PARKER,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 17, 2009)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin R. Singleton, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint, brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
(“PLRA”). On appeal, Singleton asserts that the district court erred in dismissing
his complaint because the district court: (1) failed to comply with a previous
opinion we issued in his case by not applying summary judgment standards when
resolving a factual dispute concerning whether he exhausted his administrative
remedies; (2) erroneously found that he did not properly exhaust his administrative
remedies because his administrative appeal was untimely; and (3) improperly
determined that his administrative appeal was untimely without reference to his
administrative appeal form, which was not included in the record. In addition,
Singleton contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for
reconsideration of its order dismissing his complaint.
I.
We review “de novo a district court’s interpretation and application of 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement.” Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d
2
1152, 1155 (11th Cir. 2005). We review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error. Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1288 (11th Cir. 2004). Under 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a), “[n]o 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.” “This provision entirely eliminates judicial discretion
and instead mandates strict exhaustion, irrespective of the forms of relief sought
and offered through administrative avenues.” Johnson, 418 F.3d at 1155 (internal
quotation marks omitted). In order to satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement,
“[p]risoners must timely meet the deadlines or the good cause standard of
Georgia’s administrative grievance procedures before filing a federal claim.” Id. at
1159. “The defendants bear the burden of proving that the plaintiff has failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies.” Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1082
(11th Cir. 2008).
We have held that “[b]ecause exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
matter in abatement and not generally an adjudication on the merits, an exhaustion
defense . . . is not ordinarily the proper subject for summary judgment; instead, it
should be raised in a motion to dismiss...” Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1374-75
(11th Cir. 2008) cert denied, 129 S. Ct. 733 (2008) (internal quotation marks
3
omitted). A district court may properly consider facts outside of the pleadings to
resolve a factual dispute regarding exhaustion where the factual dispute does not
decide the merits and the parties have a sufficient opportunity to develop the
record. Id. at 1376.
“Under the law of the case doctrine, both district courts and appellate courts
are generally bound by a prior appellate decision in the same case.” Alphamed,
Inc. v. B. Braun Med., Inc., 367 F.3d 1280, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 2004). This
doctrine preserves judicial efficiency by ensuring that litigation comes to an end.
Id. at 1286. However, we have held:
The law of the case doctrine will bar us from reconsideration of an
issue we have previously decided unless (1) our prior decision
resulted from a trial where the parties presented substantially
different evidence from the case at bar; (2) subsequently released
controlling authority dictates a contrary result; or (3) the prior
decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.
Id. at 1286 n.3.
Here, the second exception to the law of the case doctrine applies. In this
Court’s previous unpublished opinion in Singleton’s case, we held that where lack
of exhaustion is in dispute and is not apparent from the face of the pleadings, the
issue should be considered on summary judgment. Singleton v. Dep’t of Corr., No.
07-14231, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10776. At 5. (Per curiam). We further held that
because the district court considered facts beyond the pleadings in granting the
4
defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of exhaustion, the district court should have
applied summary judgment standards. Id. at 6. Accordingly, we directed the
district court to determine, on remand, whether Singleton raised a genuine issue of
material fact regarding the timeliness of his administrative appeal. Id. This holding
is at odds with this Court’s subsequent published opinion in Bryant. In those cases
we held that a district court should resolve factual disputes related to a motion to
dismiss for lack of exhaustion without converting the motion to one for summary
judgment. Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1374-76. Moreover, Singleton filed numerous
pleadings, affidavits, and exhibits regarding the exhaustion issue throughout this
litigation. Thus, the record demonstrates that Singleton had ample time to develop
the record. See Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1376. Because Bryant is subsequent controlling
authority, it dictates a result contrary to that in Singleton. Alphamed, 367 F.3d at
1286 n.3. Based on this Court’s Bryant decision and the fact that Singleton had
ample time to develop the record, the district court properly looked beyond the
pleadings to resolve the exhaustion issue. Alphamed, 367 F.3d at 1286 n.3; Bryant,
530 F.3d at 1376.
Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in making the factual finding
that Singleton failed to satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. Chandler, 379
F.3d at 1288; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Sgt. Johnson submitted the affidavit of James
5
Allen and the SOP in effect during April 2004, both of which confirmed that
Singleton had four business days to file an administrative appeal. Attached to
Singleton’s complaint was a grievance form indicating that Singleton confirmed
receipt of the warden’s denial on March 30, 2004, and that a prison official
confirmed receipt of Singleton’s appeal on April 6, 2004, which was five business
days later, and, therefore, one day late.
There is nothing in the record, other than Singleton’s own affidavit, to verify
his assertion that he handed his appeal to his grievance counselor on March 31,
2004. While Singleton asserts that the district court erred by failing to compel the
defendants to produce a copy of his appeal form, the absence of this form does not
demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in finding that the defendants met
their burden of demonstrating lack of exhaustion. Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1288. In
his pleadings below and briefs on appeal, Singleton does not explain why he was
unable to include a copy of the appeal form or why the record indicates that prison
officials did not receive an appeal form. Moreover, Singleton stated in his
pleadings that inmates were required to attach an appeal form to the grievance form,
and that the forms “become[] one in the appeal process.” Thus, Singleton’s
pleadings and the record indicate that prison officials would have received
Singleton’s appeal form on the same date it received his grievance form–April 6,
6
2004. In addition, while Singleton points out that the appeal form is the only
document that the inmate signs and dates, this date is not determinative of when
prison officials received the appeal. As a result, the district court did not clearly err
in finding that the date the prison officials placed on Singleton’s grievance form on
appeal was the “best evidence” of when he filed his appeal, and, accordingly, did
not clearly err in finding that Singleton did not file his appeal until April 6, 2004.
Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1288. Based on these factual findings, district court did not
err in concluding that Singleton failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
because he did not timely file his administrative appeal. Id.; Johnson, 418 F.3d at
1159. Accordingly, his complaint was properly dismissed for lack of exhaustion
under the PLRA. Johnson, 418 F.3d at 1155, 1159.
II.
We review the district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion. Corwin v. Walt Disney World Co., 475 F.3d 1239, 1254 (11th
Cir. 2007). “Motions for reconsideration should not be used to raise legal
arguments which could and should have been made before the judgment was
issued.” Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 163 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 1998).
In his motion for reconsideration, Singleton merely repeated the arguments
7
that he raised before the district court dismissed his complaint. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Singleton’s motion for
reconsideration.
Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal, we discern no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
8