Snider v. Grant, et al

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 99-60441
Summary Calendar
_______________________
TRAVIS SNIDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DON GRANT, Individually and in official capacity as Warden; J.A.
BANKS, Individually and in official capacity as Assistant Warden;
UNKNOWN BAREFOOT, Mrs., Individually and in official capacity as
Paralegal; GRIEVANCE OFFICER, Individually and in official capacity
as Grievance Officer; JAMES ANDERSON, Individually and in official
capacity as Commissioner of Mississippi Department of Corrections;
KIRK FORDICE, Individually and in official capacity as Governor of
State of Mississippi; JOHN DOE, Correction Officer No. 1,
Individually and in official capacity as Correction Officer; JOHN
DOE, Correction Officer No. 2, Individually and in official
capacity as Correction Officer; JOHN DOE, Correction Officer No. 3,
Individually and in official capacity as Correction Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
Civil Docket #4:99-CV-81-B-D
_________________________________________________________________
February 4, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Travis Snider, Mississippi prisoner #78406, appeals the
district court’s denial of in forma pauperis (IFP) status and the
closure of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust

-- 1 of 3 --

administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. We vacate
and remand for further proceedings.
Snider contends that the district court should not have
dismissed his case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
We agree. Snider alleged that he attempted to exhaust his
administrative remedies but that prison authorities did not respond
to his complaints. He further alleged that prison authorities were
in possession of all his documents concerning these complaints.
These statements were made on the form that is routinely sent to
prisoners in the Northern District of Mississippi, and they
answered the questions posed by the form. Unfortunately, because
the form did not request Snider to identify more specifically the
dates and results of his grievance procedures, and procedural
details such as the time allowed under the prison’s grievance
procedures were not elicited, Snider’s pleadings alone do not
sufficiently establish exhaustion.
This court has recognized that, following the enactment
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
Dismissal under [42 U.S.C.] § 1997e is made on
pleadings without proof. As long as the
plaintiff has alleged exhaustion with
sufficient specificity, lack of admissible
evidence in the record does not form the basis
for dismissal.
Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 119 S.Ct. 1809 (1999). Underwood also holds that failure
to fulfill the exhaustion requirement poses no jurisdictional bar
to the district court in handling the case.
Following Underwood it would appear that district courts
should scrutinize the sufficiency of allegations of exhaustion on

-- 2 of 3 --

the prisoner’s pleadings initially, without a requirement of proof.
To the extent that the amount of detail in the pleadings is shaped
by the forms the prisoners are required to fill out, the forms
should perhaps be modified. In this case, Snider pled exhaustion
definitely but conclusionally, raising the possibility that he did
in fact exhaust prison administrative remedies. Underwood counsels
that Snider’s case should proceed further to determine exhaustion.
Rather than denying leave to proceed IFP and “closing” the case,
the court should have provided Snider with an opportunity to
specify, in detail sufficient to permit independent verification,
the exhaustion of of his prison administrative remedies. We re-
emphasize that clarifying the prisoner complaint form should
facilitate this process.
Accordingly, the district court’s order denying IFP and
ordering closure of the instant case must be vacated and the case
remanded.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --