Frank Jones v. Tim Smith, Corr. Couns. Dr. A. M. Cordero, 266 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Frank Jones v. Tim Smith, Corr. Couns. Dr. A. M. Cordero, 266 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events (53 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Young v. Mulvaine (ohnd, 2022-03-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Mulvaine
N.D. Ohio · 2022 · confidence medium
Ohio) (citing Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Potee v. Cook
S.D. Ohio · 2021 · confidence medium
Second, in Rodgers v. Driesbach, Magistrate Judge Chelsey Vascura held that the mere unavailability of the JPay kiosks (out of order) and paper grievance forms was not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact; Plaintiff has to show “that there was no other source for obtaining a grievance form or that he made [another] attempt to obtain a form or to file a grievance without a form.” (Reply, ECF No. 25, PageID 385 (brackets in original), quoting Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), rev’d on other grounds sub. nom.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rodgers v. Morgan
S.D. Ohio · 2021 · confidence medium
Ohio Sept. 22, 2020) (citing Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hargrove V. Holley,et al.
S.D. Ohio · 2020 · confidence medium
Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pullen v. Combs
S.D. Ohio · 2020 · confidence medium
Jones v. Smith, 18 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Fulton County Detention Center
W.D. Ky. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Lyle v. Jackson, 49 F. App’x 492 (6th Cir. 2002); Martin v. Johnson, 72 F. App’x 256, 257-58 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that a prisoner’s allegation that he requested a grievance form but did not receive on is insufficient to establish exhaustion); Anderson v. Meeks, 79 F. App’x 113, 114 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Jones v. Smith, 266 F. 3d 399 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that it is insufficient to claim grievance forms were denied to excuse exhaustion and that prisoner must attempt to file a grievance without a form)); Jones v. Smith, 266 F. 3d at 400 (holding that an inmate failed to exha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Toran Peterson v. Unknown Cooper
6th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendants, relying on Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir.2001), argue that Peterson’s failure to obtain the proper grievance form does not excuse the exhaustion requirement and that, to defeat their motion for summary judgment, Peterson was required to show that there was no other source for the form and that he attempted to file a grievance without the form.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lamont Fitch v. Alberto Gonzales
6th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir.2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Neese v. Arpaio
D. Ariz. · 2005 · confidence medium
Compare Booth, 532 U.S. at 735 , 121 S.Ct. 1819 (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s claim for failure to exhaust because he “never sought intermediate or full administrative review after the prison authority denied relief’); Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 399 (6th Cir.2001) (concluding that dismissal for failure to exhaust was proper because the plaintiff failed to allege that the prison official who refused to provide a grievance form was the only source of those forms or that plaintiff made other attempts to obtain a form or file a grievance without a form).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Woolum (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Nonetheless, the lead opinion holds that “Thomas gave the In Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001), for state officers an opportunity” to address his grievance, “which instance, the plaintiff prisoner claimed that he had asked for is all that is required” to satisfy the statutory exhaustion a grievance form, but was told by a prison counselor to “get requirement.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Douglas Thomas v. Shawn Woolum, Richard Kepler Charlotte Starcher Billie Waddell, Sr. (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
In Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir.2001), for instance, the plaintiff prisoner claimed that he had asked for a grievance form, but was told by a prison counselor to “get out of his office.” We affirmed the dismissal of the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, reasoning that the plaintiff did “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, 266 F.3d at 400 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. Johnson
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir.2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lyle v. Jackson
6th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
This court has affirmed the dismissal of a similar case in Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir.2001), noting that a claim of denial of forms was insufficient where the prisoner did not allege that he made any other efforts to obtain forms or to file without forms.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kennedy v. Wurth
6th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir.2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Watley v. Goodman
6th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
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).
discussed Cited "see" Montgomery v. Whidbee
M.D. Tenn. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
Ind. Mar. 10, 2016) (finding no Supreme Court or circuit court cases imposing obligation to provide means for detainee to vote other than allowing detainee himself to acquire and mail an absentee ballot); see generally Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust where inmate argued “no grievance had been filed because his counselor did not give him a grievance form,” but did “not allege that there was no other source for obtaining a grievance form or that he made any other attempt to obtain a form”).
cited Cited "see" O'GUINN v. Lovelock Correctional Center
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir.2001) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" O'Guinn v. McDaniel
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Blankumsee v. The State Of Maryland
D. Maryland · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the PLRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before an action may be brought under any federal law, including the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act); see also Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of prisoners complaint under the ADA for failure to exhaust); Ervin v. Corizon Health, ELH-19-1666, 2020 WL 2490042 at *27 (May 13, 2020); Gambino v. Hershberger, TDC-17-1701, 2019 WL 1300856 , at *10 (D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Douglas Fauconier v. Harold Clarke
4th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056 , 1060–61 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The plain language of the PLRA, as well as Supreme Court . . . precedent, lead us to conclude that exhaustion is required for ADA . . . claims”); see also Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming the dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint under the ADA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the PLRA).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ervin v. Corizon Health
D. Maryland · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the PLRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before an action may be brought under any federal law, including the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act); see also Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 400 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of prisoners complaint under the ADA for failure to exhaust); Gambino v. Hershberger, TDC-17- 1701, 2019 WL 1300856 , at *10 (D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Tim SMITH, Correction Counselor; Dr. A.M. Cordero, Defendants-Appellees
00-5734.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Sep 21, 2001.
266 F.3d 399
Daughtrey, Gilman, Cohn.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Frank Jones, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Jones filed this action against a prison counselor and physician. He alleged that he suffers from back problems, diabetes, and high blood pressure, and that defendants had failed to assign him an appropriate prison job and a bottom bunk, or to treat his medical problems properly. He stated that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies because, when he asked his counselor, one of the defendants, for a grievance form, the counselor told him to get out of his office.

The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). On appeal, Jones argues that it was futile to require exhaustion in this case because he was denied a grievance form. He also raises a number of issues regarding alleged retaliation that occurred following the filing of this complaint, which were not raised in the district court and need not be addressed.

This court reviews de novo dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593, 595 (6th Cir.1997). De novo review of the record in this case reveals that the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Booth v. Churner, 531 U.S. 956, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1825, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).

Jones failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted his administrative remedies, see Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.1998), admitting that no grievance had been filed because his counselor did not give him a grievance form. This is also the only argument Jones raises on appeal relevant to the district court’s reason for dismissing his complaint. He 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. Under these circumstances, the dismissal without prejudice of this complaint was proper and is accordingly affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.