Frazier v. Bonneville et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civ. No.: 25-cv-40016-MRG
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, [ECF No. 7].
GUZMAN, J.
For the reasons stated in the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, [ECF Nos. 7, 8], and without
opposition from Plaintiff, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust available administrative
remedies before bringing an action with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or
any other federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Acosta v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 445 F.3d 509, 512
(1st Cir. 2006). Exhaustion is mandatory and unexhausted claims must be dismissed if a defendant
raises the issue and proves that exhaustion requirements were not satisfied. See Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 211 (2007) (determining that proper exhaustion is defined by the prison’s requirements,
and not the PLRA). Proper exhaustion of administrative remedies entails “using all steps that the
agency holds out and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th
THOMAS FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY BONNEVILLE, Correctional
Officer; JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer;
DAVID TUTTLE, Superintendent of the
Worcester County Sheriff’s Office; LEWIS
EVANGELIDIS, Worcester County Sheriff,
Defendants.
Case 4:25-cv-40016-MRG Document 9 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Cir. 2002)). This includes compliance with administrative deadlines. Id. (holding that a prisoner
must comply with administrative deadlines and thus cannot exhaust by filing an untimely
grievance).
Plaintiff concedes in his filings that his grievance forms submitted to the Worcester County
Jail and House of Corrections were untimely and does not provide an opposition to the Defendants’
motion. There have been no arguments made by Plaintiff for the Court to consider whether the
PLRA exhaustion is intertwined with the merits of the claims brought against Defendants. See,
e.g., Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460 (2025). Therefore, the Court must GRANT the Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss for the reasons stated in their memorandum of law. [ECF No. 7, 8].
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2026
/s/ Margaret R. Guzman
Margaret R. Guzman
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-40016-MRG Document 9 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2