United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
KRISTINE G. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court has received a Partial Recommended Disposition from
United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. No. 60).
Plaintiff Craytonia Badger filed objections to the Partial
Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 61). After a review of the
Partial Recommended Disposition, and the timely objections
received thereto, as well as a de novo review of the record,
the Court adopts Judge Deere's Partial Recommended
Disposition to grant defendants' motion for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Dkt. No. 60).
Court reviewed the objections filed by Mr. Badger, and the
Court determines they have no merit. The Court writes
separately to address issues raised in Mr. Badger's
Badger was, at the time of these grievances, a state inmate
incarcerated at the Wrightsville Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction (“ADC”). Mr. Badger
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel
and unusual punishment (Dkt. No. 2).
Badger submitted a number of grievances claiming that he
received inadequate medical treatment (Dkt. No. 2). Separate
Defendants Wendy Kelley, James Shipman, Jason Meadough,
Daniel Laminack, and Itena Jackson filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that Mr. Badger did not exhaust his
administrative remedies as to grievance numbers WR-16-107,
WR-16-108, WR-16-115, WR-16-116, and WR16-117(Dkt. No. 32).
They claim that Mr. Badger did not comply with the rules laid
out by the ADC's Inmate Grievance Procedure (Dkt. No.
Failure to Exhaust
effort to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of
prisoner suits, Congress implemented an
“invigorated” exhaustion provision. Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). The Prison Litigation
Reform Act requires that “no action shall be brought
with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
. . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility until such administrative remedies as
are available are exhausted.” See § 42
U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199, 204 (2007); Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612
(8th Cir. 2002).
Badger objects to the recommended dismissal of Ms. Kelley on
the basis that she was not named in any of the submitted
grievances (Dkt. No. 61). Mr. Badger states that he did not
name Ms. Kelley as a defendant because she directly harmed
him, but instead he named her as a defendant because she
oversees the ADC. Id. The Court notes that, in his
amended complaint, Mr. Badger brings deliberate indifference
claims against Ms. Kelley (Dkt. No. 7, at 4). To the extent
Mr. Badger contends he named Ms. Kelley as a defendant
because she supervises or oversees the ADC, a plaintiff may
not rely on the doctrine of respondeat superior as a
basis for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Givens v. Jones, 900 F.2d 1229, 1233 (8th Cir. 1990)
(“It is well settled that respondeat superior
cannot be the basis of liability in a § 1983
ADC Grievance Policy E.2 requires an inmate to write a brief
statement that includes the date, place, personnel involved,
and how the policy affected the inmate submitting the
grievance form (Dkt. Nos. 34; 13). Mr. Badger failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as to Ms. Kelley because
he did not specifically name her in any of the grievances
filed. Therefore, Ms. Kelley should be dismissed from this
James Shipman, Jason Meadough, Daniel Laminack, And Itena
Badger objects to the recommended dismissal of Mr. Meadough,
Mr. Laminack, Ms. Jackson, and Mr. Shipman because he claims
that they withheld nearly all grievances, intentionally
causing Mr. Badger to exceed the weekly limit (Dkt. No. 61).
Mr. Badger provided no evidence in support of his
submitted the declaration of Barbara Williams, the Grievance
Coordinator for the ADC (Dkt. No. 34, at 6). Ms. Williams
stated that Mr. Badger filed grievance WR-16-117 on March 10,
2016, against Mr. Shipman (Dkt. No. 34, at 7). Two days
later, on March 12, 2016, he filed grievance WR-16-116
against Ms. Jackson (Dkt. No. 34, at 7). Grievances WR-16-116
and WR-16-117 were rejected pursuant to Grievance Policy
J(1)(b), which allows inmates to submit only three formal
grievances within a seven-day period (Dkt. No. 34, at 21).
These grievances were the fourth and fifth that Mr. Badger
submitted between March 7, 2016, and March 12, 2016.