Demetrius Knuckles El; Errick E. Payton -Bey ; Michael Vaughn v. RAYMOND G. TOOMBS, Warden

4 Knuckles El, et al. v. Toombs, et al. No. 98-2181
opportunity to fulfill the requirements of Brown, which they
did not do. We, therefore, simply hold here that where the
allegedly "mixed" complaint does not carry out the pleading
requirements set forth in Brown, it will be dismissed.
2. Plaintiffs contend that they have no “available
remedy” because they seek monetary damages. The
complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief
and plaintiffs contend that their request for monetary
damages, which are not available under the Michigan system,
exempts them from the exhaustion requirement. Where the
prison has an administrative process that will review the
complaint, plaintiff must exhaust even though money
damages are not available. Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876,
878 (6th Cir. 1999).
3. Plaintiffs assert that claims of excessive force or
assault by prison guards do not fall within the term
“prison conditions” as used in the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 642-44 (6th
Cir. 1999), decides this issue against plaintiffs’ contention.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
AFFIRMED.
1
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0202P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 00a0202p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
DEMETRIUS KNUCKLES EL;
ERRICK E. P AYTON -BEY ;
M ICHAEL VAUGHN ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
R AYMOND G. TOOMBS,
Warden, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
;>

1
No. 98-2181
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 97-00362—Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge.
Submitted: May 2, 2000
Decided and Filed: June 15, 2000
Before: MERRITT, JONES, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON BRIEF: Demetrius Knuckles El, Ionia, Michigan, Errick
E. Payton-Bey, Ionia, Michigan, Michael Vaughn, Ionia,
Michigan, pro se. Mark W. Matus, MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,

-- 1 of 2 --

2 Knuckles El, et al. v. Toombs, et al. No. 98-2181
1Section 1997e(a), as amended, provides:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions
under section 1983 of this title [i.e., 42], or any other Federal
law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
CORRECTIONS DIVISION, Lansing, Michigan, for
Appellees.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This prisoners' appeal in a
§ 1983 prison assault case is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e
requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiffs,
all inmates at Ionia Maximum Facility in Ionia, Michigan,
allege that on numerous occasions between October 12, 1995,
and March 18, 1997, defendants violated their rights under the
First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by using excessive
force and engaging in "retaliatory harassment." Plaintiffs
concede that they have not exhausted all available
administrative remedies but argue that their complaint should
not be dismissed because some of the claims have been
exhausted and exhaustion is not necessary for the
unexhausted claims. The issues before us are as follows:
1. Plaintiffs contend that their cases should not be
dismissed because their complaints contain both
exhausted and unexhausted claims. We reserve to another
day the question of whether exhausted claims in a "mixed"
complaint should be addressed when such claims otherwise
meet the pleading requirements or whether such a complaint
should be dismissed in its entirety. The complaint here does
not meet the pleading requirements set forth in Brown v.
Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525
U.S. 833 (1998), and it was therefore properly dismissed. In
Brown, we held that the statutory language in 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a)1 -- "no action shall be brought until all available
No. 98-2181 Knuckles El, et al. v. Toombs, et al. 3
correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted.
administrative remedies are exhausted" – "should be
interpreted to mean precisely what is obviously intended –
that a federal court should not prematurely decide the merits
of any such action." Id. We held that in order to effectuate
this language, a prisoner must plead his claims with
specificity and show that they have been exhausted by
attaching a copy of the applicable administrative dispositions
to the complaint or, in the absence of written documentation,
describe with specificity the administrative proceeding and its
outcome. The reason for the requirement to show with
specificity both the claims presented and the fact of
exhaustion is so that the district court may intelligently decide
if the issues raised can be decided on the merits.
District courts should not have to hold time-consuming
evidentiary hearings in order simply to determine whether it
should reach the merits or decline under the mandatory
language of § 1997e ("No action shall be brought . . . ."). In
the absence of particularized averments concerning
exhaustion showing the nature of the administrative
proceeding and its outcome, the action must be dismissed
under § 1997e. There are thousands of these cases in the
Sixth Circuit district courts every year and approximately one
thousand in the court of appeals. In the absence of specific
averments, a district court must hold an evidentiary hearing or
otherwise spend a lot of time with each case just trying to find
out whether it has jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Here, plaintiffs simply state in their complaint that certain
claims have been exhausted without providing the
documentation or other details required by Brown. There are
none of the particularized averments necessary for the district
court to determine what, if any, claims have been exhausted
or what has been done in an attempt to exhaust the claims.
Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the entire
complaint without prejudice after allowing plaintiffs a full

-- 2 of 2 --