Free Notice - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

` mumli-mn-— |
`, Case 3:03-cv-00696-JBA Document 40 Filed O4/23/2004 Page1 0f2 W D7}! F6/( i
l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT coun.?) I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTf
Anthony Tma., , Z5 *4 vw iw wi; I
: ¢xQ{W€MHyJngumr
v. : No. 3:O§E%@§€“%JENFd l
John Trombly, et al. Q Q

Notice to Pro Se Litigant
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss includes an argument that you I
failed to exhaust your administrative remedies prior to bringing Q
this action. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, "no action i
shall be brought . . . until such administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § l997e(a). "Statutory R
€XhElLlSlZj.OI'1 I`GqLlj.I`€II1E1'llZS 8.IG Il'l8I1dEl*COI`y, 8.116. courts GIG HOC fféé to 1
dispense with them." Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51, 58 (2d
Cir. 2003). Courts generally do not have discretion to create g
exceptions, such as futility, to statutory exhaustion Q
requirements. gee Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 73l,`734—36 (2001). n W
Any failure to exhaust your administrative remedies, g
therefore, would require the dismissal of your case. As a i
result, the Court directs you to respond to defendant’s motion to E
dismiss by May 7, 2004, and to address in particular any steps 5
you took to exhaust your administrative remedies before bringing i
ycur suit. l
l
n
I



42 I
‘ ‘ Case 3:03-cv-00696-JBA Document 40 Filed O4/23/2004 Page20f2
Moreover, because exhaustion is required prior to bringing
suit, the new claims you seek to bring in an amended complaint
would not be the proper subject of the pending action. These
claims must be brought in a new suit. . I
IT is so ORDERED. Q
. "'”"`# . V fi I /) ifi `
I - I ,_, I I I I I up I
J§netIBond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, thiszia dey of April, 2004. i
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 I
I