PHILLIP ADLINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
KEITH MOSLEY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A prisoner at a private correctional facility filed a tort damages complaint without first exhausting administrative grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and Florida law. The Fourth District reversed the dismissal and remanded to determine whether a grievance procedure was actually available to the prisoner at the time of filing.
All state prisoners, regardless of whether incarcerated in state-owned or private facilities, must exhaust administrative grievance procedures before filing civil complaints relating to inmate care and custody. However, the exhaustion requirement applies only if a grievance procedure was actually available to the prisoner at the time of filing.
[1] Prisoners must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a civil complaint for damages relating to the care and custody of inmates, even when incarcerated i…
[2] Florida's inmate grievance procedures are consistent with federal standards for exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“All state prisoners, regardless of whether they are incarcerated in a state owned and operated prison or in a facility that is run by a private corporation under contract with the state, are required to exhaust these procedures before filing any civil complaint relating to the care and custody of inmates.”
Establishes the core holding that exhaustion requirements apply uniformly to all state prisoners regardless of facility type
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillip Adlington, an inmate at South Bay Correctional Facility (operated by a private company under contract with the Department of Corrections), fil…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inmate Grievance Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM,
Appellant Phillip Adlington is a prisoner at South Bay Correctional Facility, which is operated and maintained by a private company under contract with the Department of Corrections, as provided for by section' 944.105, Florida Statutes (1999). Before filing a civil complaint for damages against an employee of the facility, Adling-ton filed a formal grievance with the Department of Corrections, but he did not comply with rule 33-103.005, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that an informal grievance be filed at the facility first.
The circuit court dismissed the complaint on. the ground that Adlington had not exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing suit, as -required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Florida has adopted the federal standards for inmate grievance procedures promulgated under § 1997e as its standards. See §§ 944.09(l)(e) & 944.331, Fla. Stat. (1999). While we recognize that there is some dispute among the federal courts about whether exhaustion is required before money damages can be sought, we find the decisions, requiring exhaustion to be more persuasive. See Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F. 3d 65 (3d Cir.2000); Freeman v. Francis, 196 F. 3d 641 (6th Cir.1999).
For the first time. on appeal, Adlington argues that his complaint sought relief under. sections 944.105(2) and 957.05(1), Florida Statutes, which make private contractors liable in tort for claims arising with respect to the care and custody of inmates. He argues that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite for filing such a' tort claim. We disagree.
The Florida Administrative Code requires that private facilities adopt inmate grievance procedures that are consistent with the Department of Corrections’ procedures under Chapter 33-29 of the Code. All state prisoners, regardless of whether they are incarcerated in a state owned and operated prison or in a facility that is run by a private corporation under contract with the state, are required to exhaust these procedures before filing any civil complaint relating to the care and custody of inmates.
However, we note that the Florida Correctional Privatization Commission adopted rióle 60AA-29.001 after Adlington filed his civil complaint in this case. We, therefore, reverse the dismissal order and remand to allow the court to determine whether there was an inmate grievance procedure available to Adlington during the relevant time period. If the court finds that there was such a procedure in place, then Adlington was required to exhaust that procedure before filing a civil tort complaint, and his complaint should again be dismissed. If the court finds that there was no procedure available, then his failure to exhaust would be excused.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WARNER, C.J., STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. Cottrell, 204 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 2016)…rning whether Department officials timely provided the responses to [Qwens], and the court did not take competent, substantial evidence to reach its determination that the door to review in the circuit court is closed.” See also Adlington v. Mosley, 757 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversing dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and remanding for a determination as to whether.there was an inmate grievance procedure available to the prisoner, who was housed at a privately run correct…
-
Hollingsworth v. Brown, 788 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…e are exhausted. The issue raised by this case is whether § 1997e required Hollingsworth to file a grievance with regard to his claims for damages, when the available administrative remedies do not provide monetary relief.2 In Adlington v. Mosley, 757 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the circuit court held that an inmate who had filed a civil complaint for damages against a private company that operated a correctional facility was required to exhaust administrative remedies, and the appellant did not challen…
-
Brown v. Moore, 765 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…t states a claim in the nature of trover, detinue or conversion, for which general damages are presumed. At least as to the papers that were not copies of court filings, administrative remedies have been exhausted. See generally Adlington v. Mosley, 757 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). I share the majority opinion’s view that consequential damages are unavailable to Mr. Brown, but not the view that no cause of action has been stated. I would therefore vacate the judgment and remand with directions that the cas…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence