United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Batesville Division
FREDRICK L. HALE PLAINTIFF
DR. SHAWN RICHARD et al DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
following Proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent
to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. You may
file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1)
specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your
objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court
within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not
objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of
Fredrick L. Hale, a former Arkansas Department of Correction
(ADC) inmate, filed a pro se civil rights complaint
on August 8, 2016. Lori Holst, a Mental Health Supervisor at
the ADC's Grimes and McPherson Units, is the only
remaining defendant. She is sued in both her official and
to Hale's complaint, he took prescribed medications for
his “mental condition” for years before he
entered the ADC on January 6, 2016. Hale asserts that when he
entered the ADC, he notified the appropriate physicians of
his mental condition and the medications he was taking. Hale
further claims in his complaint:
I can not be held reliable for Any actions that may or may
not occur. Lori Holst (Supervisor of Mental department of
Grimes Unit has Refused to get me my medicine to control my
condition And The Arkansas Dept of Corrections Policy
Prevents SAID treatment.
Doc. No. 2, page 4.
seeks injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive
damages. On October 3, 2016, Holst filed a motion for summary
judgment, a statement of facts, and a brief in support on the
issue of exhaustion. Doc. Nos. 26-28. The Court advised Hale
of his opportunity to file a response. The Court also warned
him that if he did not file a response, the Court could
assume that the facts set out in Holst's statement of
facts are true. Doc. No. 29.
has not filed a response, and the time for doing so has
passed. Because Hale failed to controvert the facts set forth
in Holst's statement of undisputed facts, Doc. No. 27,
those facts are deemed admitted. See Local Rule
56.1(c). Holst's statement, and the other pleadings and
exhibits in the record, establish that the material facts are
not in dispute and summary judgment is appropriate.
Standard of Review
Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986).
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must
view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923,
927 (8th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on
allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the existence of
specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial.
Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007).
The nonmoving party's allegations must be supported by
sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in
his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or
fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). A dispute is
genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact
is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the
case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d
672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes that are not genuine or
that are about facts that are not material will not preclude
summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis,
Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).
asserts she is entitled to summary judgment because Hale
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before he filed
this lawsuit. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
requires an inmate to exhaust prison grievance procedures
before filing suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C.
§1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202
(2007); Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir.
2002). Exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory. Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. at 211. “The PLRA's exhaustion
requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life
whether they involve ...