Buy This Entire Record For
Mamon v. Craig
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
April 29, 2014
KEVIN J. MAMON, Plaintiff,
ANDY CRAIG, VICKI MOORE, MICHAEL SHEPHERD, HANCOCK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
Entry Directing Development of Affirmative Defense Regarding Asserted Failure to Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies or to Otherwise Comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court
The defendants have asserted the affirmative defense that the “plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act [“PLRA”], barring his claims herein.” See dkt. 10 at p. 6. Whether the mandatory provisions of the PLRA (including the requirement that a prisoner exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to initiating a lawsuit) have been complied with must be resolved before reaching the merits of this case. Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008); Perez v. Wis. Dep't of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 536 (7th Cir. 1999) (“The statute [requiring administrative exhaustion] can function properly only if the judge resolves disputes about its application before turning to any other issue in the suit.”). Accordingly, the defendants shall have through May 28, 2014, in which to either 1) file a dispositive motion in support of the affirmative defense that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the PLRA prior to filing this lawsuit, 2) notify the court that this affirmative defense is not amenable to resolution through a dispositive motion, or 3) notify the court that the defendant will not pursue this affirmative defense. If a dispositive motion is filed, the plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to respond. The defendants shall then have fifteen (15) days in which to reply.
All other proceedings and deadlines ...