United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Procedure for Filing Objections
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Chief Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may file
written objections to this Recommendation. If objections are
filed, they must be specific and must include the factual or
legal basis for your objection. Objections must be received
in the office of the United States District Court Clerk
within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation.
objections are filed, Judge Miller can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
Edward Boman, an Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”) inmate, claims that Defendants Hubbard,
Chisom, and Golden acted with deliberate indifference to his
medical needs. (Docket entry #2) These Defendants have
now moved for summary judgment on Mr. Boman's claims,
arguing that he failed to fully exhaust his administrative
remedies before filing this lawsuit. (#25, #35) Mr. Boman
responded to the motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Hubbard and Chisom. (#33) He has not responded to
Defendant Golden's motion for summary judgment, and the
time for doing so has passed. (#38)
Court must dismiss any claim that was not fully exhausted
before the date a complaint was filed. See 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to
prison conditions . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail,
prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted”); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90
(2006) (explaining the proper exhaustion of remedies
“means using all steps that the [prison] holds out, and
doing so properly”); Johnson v. Jones, 340
F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (“If exhaustion was not
completed at the time of filing, dismissal is
are exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. For example,
prisoners can be excused from exhausting administrative
remedies when correction officials have prevented them from
using grievance procedures or when officials have themselves
failed to comply with administrative procedures. Miller
v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001); Foulk
v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 697-98 (8th Cir. 2001). But
the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are few. For
example, an inmate's subjective belief about the
effectiveness of the grievance process does not excuse a
failure to exhaust; nor does confusion about the requirements
for exhaustion. Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684,
688 (8th Cir. 2000).
requirements vary from prison to prison because “it is
the prison's requirements, and not the PLRA, that define
the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007); see also
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 91. Because Mr. Boman was in
the ADC at the time the conduct at issue occurred, he was
obligated to fully exhaust the ADC's grievance
Hubbard and Chisom attach the declaration of Shelly Byers,
the ADC medical grievance supervisor, to their motion.
(#26-3) Ms. Byers testifies that Mr. Boman filed only four
grievances during the time period relevant to this lawsuit:
DR-17-269; DR-17-285; DR-17-334; and DR-17-346. (Id.
at p.1) Ms. Byers further testifies that Mr. Boman did not
complete the ADC inmate grievance process with respect to any
of those grievances.
Golden attaches the declaration of Barbara Williams, the ADC
inmate grievance coordinator, to his motion. (#36-2) Ms.
Williams testifies that Mr. Boman failed to fully exhaust the
only grievance in which he referenced Defendant Golden,
DR-17-285, prior to filing this lawsuit. (#36-2 at p.3)
March 31, 2017, Mr. Boman submitted grievance DR-17-269.
(#26-2 at p.3) That grievance was rejected as untimely.
(Id. at p.2) Mr. Boman did not appeal that decision.
April 15, 2017, Mr. Boman submitted grievance DR-17-285.
(Id. at p.8) He appealed that grievance to the
deputy director. The appeal was rejected, however, because
Mr. Boman did not attach all required documents.
(Id. at p.5) Although Mr. Boman argues that he did
include the necessary papers with his grievance appeal, his
appeal was not received by the deputy director until May 25,
2017. (Id.) Mr. Bowman filed this ...