Click Back Button to Return to Publication
RAYSHAN WATLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellee.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
2002 U.S. App. Lexis 3900;
31 Fed. Appx. 169; 82 Empl. Prac.Dec. (CCH) P40,988
March 6, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE
28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE
CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST
BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY
DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
ORDER
Rayshan Watley, an Ohio prisoner
proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 civil rights complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A(b). This case has been referred to a panel of the court
pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this
panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P.
34(a).
Seeking declaratory, injunctive,
and monetary relief, Watley filed a
complaint against James Goodman, the institutional inspector at the Southern
Ohio Correctional Facility, where Watley is incarcerated. Watley alleged that
Goodman has repeatedly refused to issue him "notification of grievance
forms" so that he can challenge the conditions of his confinement. Watley
alleged that as a result of Goodman's actions, he has been denied access to the
courts because in order to challenge the conditions of his confinement in
federal court, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies. Without the
grievance forms, Watley contends that he is unable to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
The
district court dismissed Watley's complaint for failure to state a claim upon
[**170] which relief may be granted. Watley has filed a timely appeal.
We
review de novo a judgment dismissing a suit for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Brown v.
Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000). "Dismissal of a
complaint for the failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted is
appropriate only if it appears beyond--a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief."
Id.
Upon review, we conclude that
the district court properly dismissed Watley's complaint, as it fails to state
a claim for relief. To the extent that Watley argues that Goodman refused to
provide him with the grievance forms necessary to pursue his administrative
remedies, his claim fails because Watley "does not allege that there was
no other source for obtaining a grievance form or that he made any other
attempt to obtain a form or to file a grievance without a form." Jones
v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies). In addition,
the "Decision of the Chief Inspector on a Grievance," which is
attached to Watley's complaint, indicates that Watley was not provided
grievance forms due to his failure to follow the proper procedure for
requesting such forms. Watley was provided grievance forms for the requests
that correctly
followed the grievance procedure.
Watley failed to allege a
violation of his First Amendment right of access to the courts because his
allegation that the denial of grievance forms prohibited him from filing a
civil suit in federal court fails to
establish an actual injury. See Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-53, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996).
Watley did not allege that he was denied the opportunity to present his claims
in court or that his access to the courts was obstructed or impeded by Goodman.
In fact, the Chief Inspector's decision indicates that Watley was provided
grievance forms when he followed the proper procedures for requesting them.
Watley also failed to allege that Goodman prevented him from pursuing a
legitimate, nonfrivolous legal claim. The record gives no indication
whether Watley's alleged conditions of confinement claim had any potential
merit. Therefore, Watley has not alleged the denial of "'a reasonably
adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental
constitutional rights to the courts.'" Id. at 351 (quoting Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72, 97 S. Ct. 1491 (1977)).
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule
34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.