United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I.
Procedure for Filing Objections
This
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Any party may file
written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be
specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the
objection. To be considered, objections must be received in
the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this
Recommendation.
If no
objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, any right to appeal questions of fact may be
waived.
II.
Discussion
A.
Background
Wesley
Jones, formerly an inmate at the Lake Village City Jail
(“City Jail”), filed this civil rights lawsuit
without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Docket entry #2) Mr. Jones claims that Defendant James
Hampton used excessive force against him and was deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Defendant
Hampton has now moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr.
Jones failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
filing this lawsuit. (#18) Mr. Jones has not responded to the
motion, and the time for responding has expired. (#22)
B.
Exhaustion
The
Court is obligated to 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
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 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).
Exhaustion
requirements vary from prison to prison because “it is
the prison's requirements . . . 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. Jones was an
inmate at the City Jail at the time he filed this lawsuit, he
was obligated to comply with the specific requirements of the
City Jail's grievance policy to fully exhaust his
administrative remedies. Id.
In
support of his motion, Defendant Hampton has attached the
sworn statement of Bob Graham, the Jail Administrator of the
Lake Village City Jail. (#21-1) According to Mr. Graham's
testimony, an inmate file is kept for every inmate detained
at the City Jail, and “there are no grievance forms in
Mr. Jones's file.” (Id. at p.2)
In
addition, Defendant Hampton provides his own declaration in
support of his motion. (#19-4) According to Defendant
Hampton, he offered Mr. Jones a grievance form on “more
than one occasion, ” but Mr. Jones “never
requested a grievance form.” (Id. at p.1)
Here,
Mr. Jones has not come forward with any evidence to show that
he did exhaust administrative remedies or that his failure to
exhaust should be excused. Under settled law, Mr. Jones was
required to grieve Defendant Hampton's conduct and ...