Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pinder v. McDowell

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

April 18, 2018

STEVEN PINDER, ADC #123397 PLAINTIFF
v.
ALVA GREEN MCDOWELL, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedures for Filing Objections

         This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation.

         If no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

         II. Background

         Steven Pinder, an Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and violated his first amendment rights. (Docket entries #2, #13) The Court initially allowed Mr. Pinder to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but later revoked his IFP status after determining that he had failed to sufficiently allege that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm so as to be exempt from the “three strikes” rule. (#49) After Mr. Pinder failed to timely submit the statutory filing fee, the Court dismissed Mr. Pinder's claims, without prejudice. (#64) Mr. Pinder appealed the Court's decision.[1]

         On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted Mr. Pinder leave to proceed IFP, vacated this Court's orders, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Specifically, the Court, “vacate[d] the district court's orders and remand[ed] for the review of the merits of the entire amended complaint.” (#81 at p.3) (emphasis added)

         The ADC Defendants, the Medical Defendants[2], and Maxor Pharmacy then moved for summary judgment on Mr. Pinder's claims against them, arguing that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (#114, #117, #120) The Court, however, denied the motions based on the explicit instructions of the Court of Appeals. (#137)

         Separate Defendant Maxor Correctional Pharmacy Services (“Maxor”) and the ADC Defendants then moved for summary judgment on the merits of Mr. Pinder's claims. (#160, #174) In addition, the Medical Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Pinder's claims against them based on his failure to complete a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) medical authorization. (#158)

         The Court granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment, as well as the motion to dismiss. (#208) Mr. Pinder appealed the Court's decision. (#211)

         The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Mr. Pinder's claims against the Medical Defendants, but reversed the dismissal of claims against the remaining Defendants. The Court again remanded the case for a determination as to whether Mr. Pinder had fully exhausted his claims against those Defendants before filing suit. (#223)

         III. Analysis

         A. Exhaustion

         The Court must dismiss any claim that was not fully exhausted before the date a complaint was filed. 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 mandatory”).

         There 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. An inmate's subjective belief about the effectiveness of the grievance process does ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.