WILLIAMS v. MARTINEZ

Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JAMAR LIVINGSTON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:24-cv-208-MCR-MJF
AARON MARTINEZ,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jamar Williams, 	proceeding 	pro se, has filed a third
amended civil-rights complaint. Doc. 19. Defendant Martinez moves to
dismiss 	the 	complaint 	because 	Williams 	failed 	to 	exhaust 	his
administrative remedies. Doc. 29. Williams opposes the motion. Doc. 31.
The undersigned recommends that the District Court deny Martinez’s
motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Williams is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections
(“FDC”) housed at the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution. Williams
initiated this civil action on September 4, 2024, by filing a complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Williams’s third amended complaint
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 11

Page 2 of 11
names only one Defendant: Aaron Martinez. Doc. 19. Williams claims
that Martinez violated the Eighth Amendment when he used excessive
force on Williams on July 6, 2021, at the Graceville Correctional Facility.
As relief, Williams seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Martinez moves to 	dismiss this action with prejudice 	because
Williams failed to 	properly exhaust 	his administrative 	remedies as
required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Doc. 29. Williams argues that he
satisfied § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement. Doc. 31.
D ISCUSSION
A. 	The PLRA’s Exhaustion Requirement
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that: “No
action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section
1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any
jail, 	prison, 	or 	other 	correctional 	facility 	until 	such 	administrative
remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This
exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits that concern prison
life. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). “[P]roper exhaustion
of administrative remedies . . . means using all steps that the agency
holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 11

Page 3 of 11
on the merits).” 	Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
“To determine ‘proper exhaustion’ in prisoner civil rights actions,
courts must look to the requirements of the ‘prison grievance system.’”
Gipson v. Renninger, 750 F. App’x 948, 951 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 95). In other words, “[a] prisoner must comply with
rules ‘defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process
itself.’” Gipson, 750 F. App’x at 951 (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,
218 (2007)).
Generally, the FDC’s administrative remedy program requires an
inmate 	to 	begin 	the 	grievance 	process 	by 	submitting 	an 	informal
grievance to the designated staff member, who forwards the informal
grievance to the staff member responsible in the particular area of the
problem. Fla. Admin. Code r. 33-103.005. When an inmate decides to file
a 	formal 	grievance 	he 	must 	submit 	the 	appropriate 	form 	and
attachments to the warden’s office. Fla. Admin. Code r. 33-103.006(1). If
the inmate is dissatisfied with the response to the formal grievance, he
may file an appeal to the Office of Secretary. Fla. Admin. Code r. 33-
103.007(1).
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 11

Page 4 of 11
B. 	The Framework for Evaluating an Exhaustion Defense
A failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative
defense that the defendant bears the burden of proving. Jones, 549 U.S.
at 216; 	Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir. 2008).
Addressing a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust involves two steps.
Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082.
First, the court looks to the factual allegations in the defendant’s
motion, and those in the plaintiff’s response. See id. at 1082. 	If they
conflict, the court accepts the plaintiff’s version of the facts as true. “If,
in that light, the defendant is entitled to have the complaint dismissed
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it must be dismissed.” Id.
at 1082.
If the complaint is not subject to dismissal at the first step—where
the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true—“the court proceeds to
make specific findings in order to resolve the disputed factual issues
related to exhaustion.” Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082 (citing Bryant v. Rich,
530 F.3d 1368, 1373–74, 1376 (11th Cir. 2008)). Upon making findings
on the disputed issues of fact, the court then decides whether, under
those findings, the plaintiff has exhausted his available administrative
remedies. “A district court may properly consider facts outside of the
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 11

Page 5 of 11
pleadings to resolve a factual dispute regarding exhaustion where the
factual dispute 	does not 	decide 	the 	merits 	and the 	parties have 	a
sufficient opportunity to develop the record.” Singleton v. Dep’t of Corr.,
323 F. App’x 783, 785 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1376)).
C. 	Application of the Turner Procedure
The allegations in Martinez’s motion to dismiss do not conflict with
the allegations in Williams’s response to that motion, at least with regard
to the steps Williams took to exhaust his administrative remedies.
The parties agree that Williams filed one grievance relating to
Martinez’s use of force: informal grievance log #125-2107-0027. Doc. 19
at 12 in ECF; Doc. 29. Williams’s informal grievance and response are
part of the record. Doc. 19 at 12.
On July 20, 2021, a prison official (K. Hauser) approved Williams’s
informal grievance, stating:
Per 	GRCF 	facility 	investigator 	Mrs. 	Martinez 	on 	7/6/21
Inspector Basford from the OIG interviewed you in regard to
this claim.
Said claim is still under review with the OIG.
Claim in process your informal is approved in that sence [sic].
Doc. 	19 	at 	12. 	Hauser’s 	handwritten 	response 	is 	followed 	by 	this
preprinted language on the grievance form:
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 11

Page 6 of 11
The following pertains to informal grievances only:
Based on the above information, your grievance is _________.
(Returned, Denied, or Approved). If your informal grievance
is denied, you have the right to submit a formal grievance in
accordance with Chapter 33-103.006, F.A.C.
Doc. 19 at 12. Hauser wrote “Approved” in the blank space and circled
the word “Approved” in the parenthetical. Id. Hauser then signed and
dated the response. Id. That concluded the “Response” section of the
grievance.
At 	the 	bottom 	of 	the 	grievance 	form 	is 	general 	processing
information for informal grievances (how to distribute the original and
copies, the responding official’s response deadline, etc.). This information
is followed by instructions on how to submit a formal grievance. Id.
That 	was 	the 	extent 	of 	Williams’s 	grievances 	with 	regard 	to
Martinez’s use of force on July 6, 2021. Doc. 19 at 11; Doc. 29. The use of
force was reviewed by the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”). Doc.
19-1. 	The 	OIG 	disapproved 	Martinez’s use 	of force as 	excessive 	or
unwarranted. Id.
The question in this case—and where the parties disagree—is
whether 	Williams’s 	informal 	grievance 	was 	sufficient 	to 	constitute
exhaustion. Martinez asserts that Williams was required to appeal the
approved grievance. Doc. 29. Martinez notes that “if the inmate believes
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 11

Page 7 of 11
that 	their informal 	grievance 	was not 	appropriately 	addressed, the
inmate may file a formal grievance at their institution using Force DC1-
303.” Doc. 29 at 9 (citing Fla. Admin. Code rr. 33-103.005(4)(a), 33-
103.006).
Williams counters that he was not required to appeal because his
grievance was approved, he was satisfied with the response, and the
response indicated that a formal grievance was required only if his
informal grievance was denied. Doc. 31.
Courts in this Circuit have held that when a Florida inmate’s
informal grievance is addressed and approved, the inmate is not required
to submit any further grievances about the issue. Williams v. Dep't of
Corr., 678 F. App’x 877, 880–81 (11th Cir. 2017) (because inmate’s
informal 	grievance 	was 	addressed 	and 	approved, 	inmate 	was 	not
required to submit any further grievances about the issue in question);
Harvard v. Inch, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1220, 1248 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (Florida
prisoner whose informal grievance was approved “did not need to appeal
his grant in order to exhaust his administrative remedies”); cf. Whatley
v. Smith, 898 F.3d 1072, 1085 n.60 (11th Cir. 2018) (“A grievance can be
exhausted without being appealed all the way through the grievance
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 11

Page 8 of 11
resolution 	process.”). 	Martinez 	does 	not 	address—much 	less
distinguish—these decisions.
Martinez also does not identify any provision of the FDC’s inmate
grievance procedure that requires an inmate to appeal the approval of an
informal grievance. The only provision of the FDC’s grievance procedure
that 	addresses 	approved 	grievances 	relates 	to 	approved 	formal
grievances and provides instructions to staff. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code
r. 33-103.016.
Martinez 	emphasizes 	the 	general 	preprinted 	language 	on 	the
bottom of the informal grievance form that describes how to submit a
formal grievance:
You may obtain further administrative review of your
complaint 	by 	obtaining 	form 	DC1-303, 	Request 	for
Administrative Remedy or Appeal, completing the form as
required by Rule 33-103.006, F.A.C., attaching a copy of your
informal 	grievance 	and 	response, 	and 	forwarding 	your
complaint to the warden or assistant warden no later than 15
days after the grievance is responded to.
Doc. 29 at 4; see also Doc. 19 at 12.
Martinez, however, ignores the preprinted language appearing in
the 	“Response” 	section 	of 	Williams’s 	grievance. 	Immediately 	after
Hauser’s disposition of the grievance as “Approved” there is language
informing Williams that he could submit a formal grievance 	if his
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 8 of 11

Page 9 of 11
informal grievance was denied. Doc. 19 at 12. The implication of that
language, of course, is that if the grievance was approved, nothing further
was required. See Fla. Admin. Code r. 33-103.015(5) (the right-to-further-
review language applies, and must be included, if the informal or formal
grievance is denied).
Thus, even if the grievance procedure required Williams to appeal
the approved grievance (which it did not), the specific language in the
FDC’s response to Williams’s informal grievance induced Williams to
believe 	that 	no 	further 	action 	was 	required 	on 	his 	part. 	“An
administrative remedy is not ‘available,’ and therefore need not be
exhausted, if prison officials erroneously inform an inmate that the
remedy does not exist or inaccurately describe the steps he needs to take
to pursue it.” See Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 906 (7th Cir. 2011); see
also Geter v. Baldwin State Prison, 974 F.3d 1348, 1358 (11th Cir. 2020).
The conclusion that Williams satisfied § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion
requirement is consistent with numerous other federal district courts in
Florida which consistently have concluded that an inmate sufficiently
exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a grievance that was
marked “approved” by the FDC with confirmation that the incident was,
or would be, referred to the inspector general for investigation. See Perea
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 9 of 11

Page 10 of 11
v. Smith, 2024 WL 559260, at *2–3 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2024) (rejecting
defendants’ exhaustion argument in identical circumstances), adopted,
2024 WL 554153 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2024); Blake v. Carter, 2024 WL
4246679 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2024); Johnson v. Shuler, 2022 WL 17811970,
at *4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2022), adopted, 2022 WL 17811959 (N.D. Fla.
Dec. 19, 2022); Luckey v. May, 2016 WL 1128426, at *9–10 (N.D. Fla. Feb.
17, 2016), adopted, 2016 WL 1169481 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2016); Tierney
v. Hattaway, 2022 WL 18159995, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2022), adopted,
2023 WL 139132 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2023); see also Manago v. Glass, 2019
WL 1014440, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2019).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Martinez has not carried his burden
of establishing that Williams failed to exhaust available administrative
remedies. Thus, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the
District Court DENY Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 29.
At Panama City, Florida, this 15th day of December 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 10 of 11

Page 11 of 11
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this report and recommendation waives the
right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:24-cv-00208-MCR-MJF Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 11 of 11