WILSON v. FLORES

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BRENT L. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv890/MCR/ZCB
R. FLORES,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the
amended 	complaint. 	(Doc. 	33). 	The 	Court 	afforded 	Plaintiff 	an
opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss. 	(Doc. 35).1 	Because
1 Plaintiff did not receive the Court’s order because it was returned to the
Court as undeliverable. 	(Doc. 36). 	Plaintiff has been released from the
FDOC, and he did not inform the Court of his new address nor has
Plaintiff otherwise communicated with the Court since his release. (Id.).
Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his address would itself
be grounds for dismissal of this action. 	See Brown v. Powell, No.
3:21cv2921, 	2022 	WL 	1229315, 	at 	*1-2 	(N.D. 	Fla. 	Mar. 	7, 	2022)
(dismissing case because pro se litigant failed to keep the Court apprised
of his mailing address).
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 10

2
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this
lawsuit, the motion to dismiss should be granted.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections
(FDOC) when he filed his § 1983 complaint. 	(Doc. 1). 	His amended
complaint alleges he is a follower of Yahweh and required to maintain
facial hair. 	(Doc. 11 at 11). 	Plaintiff alleges on March 21, 2025,
Defendant 	Flores, 	the 	Warden 	at 	Century 	Correctional 	Institution,
ordered him to shave off his beard and moustache even though they were
less than ½-inch in compliance with the FDOC’s grooming policy. (Id. at
5-8); 	Fla 	Admin. 	Code 	R. 	33-602.101(4).2 	Plaintiff 	brings 	a 	First
Amendment claim against Warden Flores for violating his right to freely
exercise his religion. (Id. at 9, 11). He seeks punitive damages. (Id.).
2 The FDOC’s grooming policy provides:
All inmates shall elect either to be clean shaven or to grow
and maintain a half-inch beard….Those male inmates who
desire to remain clean shaven shall be clipper shaved three
times per week, and those inmates who desire to grow a half-
inch beard shall have their beards trimmed three times per
week with a clipper fitted with a half-inch guard.
Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-602.101(4).
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 10

3
Defendant has moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 33 at 3-14). For the reasons
below, the Court agrees with Defendant.3
II. 	The Exhaustion Requirement
Under 	the 	Prison 	Litigation 	Reform 	Act 	(“PLRA”), 	42 	U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), a prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before
bringing an action in federal court. 	Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520
(2002). To exhaust, a prisoner must complete the administrative process
using the prison’s grievance procedures. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218
(2007). 	Proper 	exhaustion 	requires 	compliance 	with 	the 	prison’s
“deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” 	Geter v. Baldwin State
Prison, 974 F.3d 1348, 1354 (11th Cir. 2020).
Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that defendants may
bring in a motion to dismiss. 	Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802
F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2015). 	There is a two-step framework that
governs such motions to dismiss. 	Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077,
3 Because dismissal is warranted for failure to exhaust, it is unnecessary
to address Defendant’s alternative arguments. (Doc. 33 at 14-32).
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 10

4
1082-83 (11th Cir. 2008). 	Under the first step, the Court must “look to
the factual allegations in the motion to dismiss and those in the prisoner’s
response and accept the prisoner’s view of the facts as true.” 	Whatley,
802 F.3d at 1209. If the facts as stated by the prisoner show a failure to
exhaust, then the case should be dismissed at step one. 	Id.
Where dismissal is not warranted on the prisoner’s view of the
facts, it is necessary to proceed to step two. 	Id. 	There, “the court makes
specific findings to resolve disputes of fact, and should dismiss if, based
on those findings, defendants have shown a failure to exhaust.” 	Id. 	“To
make these specific findings, courts should . . . look outside [of] the
pleadings[,]” ensuring the parties have had sufficient opportunity to
develop the record. 	Jenkins v. Sloan, 826 F. App’x 833, 838 (11th Cir.
2020). 	A district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing when none
has been requested and instead may rely on the papers submitted by the
parties. Zavala v. Ward, No. 21-10989, 2024 WL 510011, at *4 (11th Cir.
Feb. 9, 2024).
As an FDOC prisoner, Plaintiff was required to exhaust his First
Amendment claim under the grievance procedure set forth in § 33-103 of
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 10

5
the Florida Administrative Code. Bracero v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 748
F. App’x 200, 202 (11th Cir. 2018). 	That grievance procedure has three
layers: 	(1) the inmate files an informal grievance within twenty days of
the incident; (2) if the grievance is not resolved informally, then the
inmate files a formal grievance at the institutional level within fifteen
days from the date the informal grievance was responded to; and (3) if
the inmate is unhappy with the formal grievance response, then the
inmate appeals to the FDOC Secretary/Central Office within fifteen days
of the response to the formal grievance. 	Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 33-
103.005-007, 011 (2018).
III. 	Discussion
Defendant has moved to dismiss based on failure to exhaust.
Consistent with the discussion above, the Court will first “look to the
factual allegations in the motion to dismiss and those in the prisoner’s
response and accept the prisoner’s view of the facts as true.” 	Whatley,
802 F.3d at 1209. 	The Court will then determine “if the facts as stated
by the prisoner show a failure to exhaust.” 	Id.
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 10

6
In the motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff filed
informal and formal grievances and an administrative appeal regarding
Defendant Flores’ requiring him to shave, but none of those filings
mentioned 	any 	implication 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	religious 	practice 	or 	First
Amendment rights. 	Instead, they grieved only Warden Flores’ alleged
failure 	to 	follow 	the 	FDOC’s 	grooming 	policy. 	In 	support 	of 	that
argument, Defendant has provided copies of two informal grievances and
one formal grievance. 	(Doc. 33-1 at 3-5, 7-11). 	Defendant also provided
a declaration from Century C.I.’s grievance coordinator, Jennifer Day,
and a declaration from the Bureau Chief of the FDC’s Bureau of Policy
Management and Inmate Appeals, Alan McManus. (Doc. 33-1 at 1; Doc.
33-2 at 1-2).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint attached the same grievances and
administrative appeal that Defendant relies on. 	(Doc. 11 at 6; Doc. 11-
1). Because under Plaintiff’s version of the facts, he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies on the alleged violation of his constitutional
right to freely exercise his religion, dismissal is warranted at step one of
the Turner analysis. 	See Bracero, 748 F. App’x at 202 (explaining that
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 6 of 10

7
dismissal is warranted “if the facts as stated by the prisoner show a
failure to exhaust”).
To 	sufficiently 	exhaust 	administrative 	remedies, 	an 	inmate's
grievances—and any appeals of denied grievances—must provide the
FDOC with notice of the issue for which an inmate seeks a remedy. 	See
Maldonado v. Unnamed Defendant, 648 F. App’x 939, 953 (11th Cir.
2016); Harvard v. Inch, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1220, 1244 (N.D. Fla. 2019)
(explaining that a standard “akin to notice pleading” is appropriate when
determining whether a Florida inmate’s grievances contained sufficient
details to exhaust administrative remedies). 	A prisoner-plaintiff is not
required 	to 	present 	specific 	legal 	theories 	or 	identify 	specific
constitutional provisions in his grievance. 	See Johnson v. Johnson, 385
F.3d 503, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2004); Goldsmith v. White, 357 F. Supp. 2d
1336, 1339 (N.D. Fla. 2005); Maldonado, 648 F. App’x at 953. 	But he
must provide sufficient information to alert the prison officials to the
problem so that prison officials may address it. 	See Jones, 549 U.S. at
219 (citing Johnson, 385 F.3d at 518); Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d
1152, 1158 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that the purpose of exhaustion is
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 7 of 10

8
to provide prison officials “an opportunity to address the grievance
internally and rule on the grievance before the inmate files a complaint
in federal court”).
Here, 	Plaintiff’s 	grievances 	told 	officials 	that 	Warden 	Flores
required him to shave off his beard on March 21, 2025, even though it
was less than one-half inch long. Plaintiff did not, however, tell officials
that the warden’s requiring him to shave violated his religious beliefs.
Put another way, Plaintiff’s grievances gave prison officials notice that
there was a problem with the warden requiring him to shave, but his
grievances 	did 	not 	give 	them 	notice 	that 	the 	shaving 	requirement
impacted his religious beliefs. 	Indeed, Plaintiff’s grievances gave no
indication that the problem was religious-based at all. For this reason,
Plaintiff did not exhaust his First Amendment free exercise claim. 	See
Johnson, 385 F.3d at 518, 523 (holding that plaintiff did not exhaust his
race-based equal protection claims because his grievances gave prison
officials notice that there was a problem with protection from sexual
assaults but did not give notice that there was a race-related problem);
see also Goldsmith v. White, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1337, 1340-41 (N.D.
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 8 of 10

9
Fla. 2005) (holding that prisoner failed to exhaust claim of discrimination
based on sexual orientation where he filed grievances contesting an
officer’s confiscation of his contact lenses, but his grievances made no
mention 	of 	his 	sexual 	orientation 	or 	of 	the 	claim 	that 	his 	sexual
orientation was the reason for the taking of his contact lenses).4
Defendant has carried his burden of establishing that Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 	Because Defendant has
met this burden, his motion to dismiss should be granted and Plaintiff’s
4 See also Stallworth v. Williams, No. 5:17cv306, 2024 WL 1364766, at *7
(N.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2024), adopted 2024 WL 1348387, at *1 (N.D. Fla.
Mar. 	28, 	2024) 	(holding 	that 	plaintiff’s 	formal 	grievance 	and
administrative appeal concerning dirty food trays which caused him to
be sick did not provide notice of plaintiff’s retaliation claims because
plaintiff did not allege that defendants were retaliating or that they
refused to provide a clean tray because plaintiff had filed grievances);
Gordon v. Stalder, No. 06-1389-P, 2008 WL 11336236, at *5 (W.D. La.
Mar. 3, 2008) (holding that prisoner did not exhaust claim that medical
staff denied him treatment for Hepatitis B based on his race where his
grievances asserted he was repeatedly denied medical treatment for his
condition but never mentioned racial discrimination or race); Curtis v.
Solomon, No. 5:04cv387, 2006 WL 1653608, at *2-4 (N.D. Fla. June 7,
2006) (holding that prisoner did not exhaust claim that prison officials
retaliated against him for filing grievances related to dental care where
prisoner made brief references to retaliation in his institutional level
grievances but never made any reference to retaliation in his appeals to
the FDOC Secretary).
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 9 of 10

10
amended complaint dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 33) be GRANTED and
this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
3. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida this 6th day of March 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to the proposed findings and recommendations set forth
above must be filed within fourteen days of the date of this 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 the objections on 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
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-00890-MCR-ZCB Document 37 Filed 03/06/26 Page 10 of 10