JACKSON v. NWFRC

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
ANTWAN JOVAN JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25cv353-MW-HTC
NWFRC,
Defendant.
__________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Antwan Jackson has filed an amended civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the conduct of prison officials at Northwest
Florida Reception Center (“NWFRC”). 	Doc. 9. 	After reviewing the amended
complaint, the undersigned concludes this case should be DISMISSED without
prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, as it is apparent from the face of the complaint
that Jackson’s claims are unexhausted.
I. 	Background
Jackson commenced this action by filing a handwritten complaint alleging
that on December 2 and 3 of 2025, he was denied food, denied medical and mental
health treatment, and housed in a cell covered in feces. Doc. 1. On December 16,
the Court ordered Jackson to, within twenty-one days: (1) file an amended complaint
Case 5:25-cv-00353-MW-HTC Document 12 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 5:25cv353-MW-HTC
on the Court’s complaint form; and (2) either file a complete application to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the $405 filing fee. Doc. 3.
In the December 16 Order, the Court also observed that Jackson’s allegations
concerned events that occurred on December 2 and 3, and he submitted his complaint
to prison officials for mailing on December 5.1 Considering Jackson filed this case
only a couple of days after he was allegedly mistreated, the Court: (1) noted it was
unlikely Jackson had fully exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his
allegations; and (2) advised Jackson to file a notice of voluntary dismissal if he had
not exhausted his administrative remedies, as his claims would be subject to
dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Doc. 3 at 2-3. Because a plaintiff does not
need to allege exhaustion in the complaint, the Court cautioned Jackson against
proceeding with this action but, nonetheless, allowed him an opportunity to file an
amended complaint.
Jackson subsequently filed a “motion to stay proceeding” (Doc. 4); the Court
denied that motion but extended the deadline for Jackson to comply with the
December 16 Order to January 20, 2026 (Doc. 5). 	Jackson then filed a motion
requesting a 60-day extension of the January 20 deadline. Doc. 6. He asked for the
1 Under the prison mailbox rule, a document submitted by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the
date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. 	See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76
(1988).
Case 5:25-cv-00353-MW-HTC Document 12 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 5:25cv353-MW-HTC
extension because, among other things, he was “in the process of exhausting his
administrative remedies.” Id.
Because Jackson admitted he did not exhaust his administrative remedies
before filing his initial complaint, the Court denied his motion for extension of time
as futile on January 20 and, instead, gave him fourteen (14) days to either: (1) file a
notice of voluntary dismissal; or (2) show cause why this case should not be
dismissed for failure to exhaust and comply with the Court’s December 16 Order.
See Doc. 7 (advising Jackson that he “cannot cure his failure to exhaust in this case
by attempting to exhaust his administrative remedies after he filed his December 5
complaint and then amending the complaint”). 	On February 4, Jackson filed an
amended complaint (Doc. 9) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
10). 	As set forth below, the amended complaint makes clear Jackson failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action.
II. 	Discussion
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires a prisoner to exhaust his
available administrative remedies before filing suit. 	42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No
action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions … by a prisoner … until
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”). Thus, before filing
this case, Jackson was required to comply with the FDOC’s procedures for filing
grievances regarding his claims, as well as pursue any available appeals of the denial
Case 5:25-cv-00353-MW-HTC Document 12 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 5:25cv353-MW-HTC
of those grievances. See Abram v. Leu, 848 F. App’x 868, 869 (11th Cir. 2021) (“[A]
prisoner must complete the administrative process in accordance with the applicable
grievance procedures set by the prison.”); see also Arias v. Perez, 758 F. App’x 878,
881 (11th Cir. 2019) (“A prisoner must exhaust each claim that he seeks to present
in court.”).
In his amended complaint, Jackson alleges he exhausted his administrative
remedies, and he attached a grievance he filed with the Secretary of the Florida
Department of Corrections to show he exhausted those remedies. See Doc. 9-1 at 3
(“The Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies see Pg - 27.”). 	That
grievance complains about the same issues raised in this action, but it is dated
December 8, 2025. Doc. 9-1 at 15-18. Because it was filed after Jackson brought
this action on December 5, it does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement.2 See
Okpala v. Drew, 248 F. App’x 72, 73 n.2 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting “[i]t is well-settled
that the PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing
suit with respect to prison conditions”); Higginbottom v. Carter, 223 F.3d 1259, 1261
(11th Cir. 2000) (“The plain language of the [§ 1997e(a)] makes exhaustion a
precondition to filing an action in federal court.”) (citation omitted).
2 Jackson did not submit the Secretary’s response to the grievance, but nothing in the response
could alter the conclusion that Jackson did not complete, much less begin, the grievance process
until after he filed this case.
Case 5:25-cv-00353-MW-HTC Document 12 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 5:25cv353-MW-HTC
Thus, Jackson’s amended complaint demonstrates he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing his initial complaint. And Jackson’s December
8 grievance, and his filing of the amended complaint, cannot cure that failure to
exhaust. 	See Smith v. Terry, 491 F. App’x 81, 83 (11th Cir. 2012) (The prisoner’s
“attempt to amend or supplement his original complaint did not change the important
historical fact: his administrative remedies were unexhausted when he filed his
original complaint. 	Therefore, he cannot cure the exhaustion defect.”). 	Because
Jackson’s failure to exhaust is apparent from the face of the amended complaint, this
case should be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for
failure to state a claim.3 See Wells v. Brown, 58 F.4th 1347, 1350 (11th Cir. 2023)
(holding a dismissal for failure to exhaust amounts to a dismissal for failure to state
a claim when the failure to exhaust appears on the face of the prisoner’s complaint)4;
Okpala, 248 F. App’x at 73 (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies when the failure was clear from the face of the complaint).
3 Because Jackson is a prisoner seeking relief from government employees, the Court must dismiss
his amended complaint, or any portion thereof, if it determines it is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
4 In Wells, the Eleventh Circuit noted the “face” of the complaint includes “the complaint in its
entirety” and “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference,” such as the grievance
Jackson attached to the amended complaint. See Wells, 58 F.4th at 1357 n.2; see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading
for all purposes.”).
Case 5:25-cv-00353-MW-HTC Document 12 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 5:25cv353-MW-HTC
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 13 th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different
deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon
all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 5:25-cv-00353-MW-HTC Document 12 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 6