RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 4 Knuckles El, et al. v. Toombs, et al. No. 98-2181 Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0202P (6th Cir.) File Name: 00a0202p.06 opportunity to fulfill the requirements of Brown, which they did not do. We, therefore, simply hold here that where the allegedly "mixed" complaint does not carry out the pleading requirements set forth in Brown, it will be dismissed. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2. Plaintiffs contend that they have no “available FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT remedy” because they seek monetary damages. The _________________ complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief

; and plaintiffs contend that their request for monetary

 damages, which are not available under the Michigan system, DEMETRIUS KNUCKLES EL;  exempts them from the exhaustion requirement. Where the ERRICK E. PAYTON-BEY;  prison has an administrative process that will review the MICHAEL VAUGHN,  complaint, plaintiff must exhaust even though money No. 98-2181 damages are not available. Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, Plaintiffs-Appellants,  878 (6th Cir. 1999). > v.  3. Plaintiffs assert that claims of excessive force or  assault by prison guards do not fall within the term   RAYMOND G. TOOMBS, “prison conditions” as used in the Prison Litigation Defendants-Appellees.  Reform Act. Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 642-44 (6th Warden, et al., Cir. 1999), decides this issue against plaintiffs’ contention.  Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is 1 AFFIRMED. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 97-00362—Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge. Submitted: May 2, 2000 Decided and Filed: June 15, 2000 Before: MERRITT, JONES, and CLAY, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Demetrius Knuckles El, Ionia, Michigan, Errick E. Payton-Bey, Ionia, Michigan, Michael Vaughn, Ionia, Michigan, pro se. Mark W. Matus, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,

1 2 Knuckles El, et al. v. Toombs, et al. No. 98-2181 No. 98-2181 Knuckles El, et al. v. Toombs, et al. 3

CORRECTIONS DIVISION, Lansing, Michigan, for administrative remedies are exhausted" – "should be Appellees. interpreted to mean precisely what is obviously intended – that a federal court should not prematurely decide the merits _________________ of any such action." Id. We held that in order to effectuate this language, a prisoner must plead his claims with OPINION specificity and show that they have been exhausted by _________________ attaching a copy of the applicable administrative dispositions to the complaint or, in the absence of written documentation, MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This prisoners' appeal in a describe with specificity the administrative proceeding and its § 1983 prison assault case is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e outcome. The reason for the requirement to show with requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiffs, specificity both the claims presented and the fact of all inmates at Ionia Maximum Facility in Ionia, Michigan, exhaustion is so that the district court may intelligently decide allege that on numerous occasions between October 12, 1995, if the issues raised can be decided on the merits. and March 18, 1997, defendants violated their rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by using excessive District courts should not have to hold time-consuming force and engaging in "retaliatory harassment." Plaintiffs evidentiary hearings in order simply to determine whether it concede that they have not exhausted all available should reach the merits or decline under the mandatory administrative remedies but argue that their complaint should language of § 1997e ("No action shall be brought . . . ."). In not be dismissed because some of the claims have been the absence of particularized averments concerning exhausted and exhaustion is not necessary for the exhaustion showing the nature of the administrative unexhausted claims. The issues before us are as follows: proceeding and its outcome, the action must be dismissed under § 1997e. There are thousands of these cases in the 1. Plaintiffs contend that their cases should not be Sixth Circuit district courts every year and approximately one dismissed because their complaints contain both thousand in the court of appeals. In the absence of specific exhausted and unexhausted claims. We reserve to another averments, a district court must hold an evidentiary hearing or day the question of whether exhausted claims in a "mixed" otherwise spend a lot of time with each case just trying to find complaint should be addressed when such claims otherwise out whether it has jurisdiction to reach the merits. meet the pleading requirements or whether such a complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. The complaint here does Here, plaintiffs simply state in their complaint that certain not meet the pleading requirements set forth in Brown v. claims have been exhausted without providing the Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 documentation or other details required by Brown. There are U.S. 833 (1998), and it was therefore properly dismissed. In none of the particularized averments necessary for the district Brown, we1 held that the statutory language in 42 U.S.C. court to determine what, if any, claims have been exhausted § 1997e(a) -- "no action shall be brought until all available or what has been done in an attempt to exhaust the claims. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the entire complaint without prejudice after allowing plaintiffs a full 1 Section 1997e(a), as amended, provides: No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title [i.e., 42], or any other Federal correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other available are exhausted.