United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
JASON L. HOUSTON, Reg. #31420-045 PLAINTIFF
v.
J. WILDER and T. HALL DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I.
Procedures for Filing Objections:
This
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may file
written objections to this Recommendation. Objections should
be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for
the objection. To be considered, all objections must be
received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of
this Recommendation.
If no
objections are filed, Judge Marshall can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, the parties may waive their right to appeal
questions of fact.
II.
Discussion:
A.
Background
Jason
L. Houston, a federal inmate incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Complex in Forrest City, Arkansas,
(“FCC-FC”), filed this lawsuit without the help
of a lawyer. He claims that Defendants Wilder and Hall were
deliberately indifferent to his safety and that they
discriminated against him because of his race. (Docket
entries #2, #6)
Defendants
have now moved for summary judgment on all claims against
them. They contend that Mr. Houston failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. (#14) In
the alternative, they argue that Mr. Houston's claim
should be dismissed because he has not stated constitutional
claims against them. Mr. Houston has not responded to the
motion, and the response time has passed. (#18)
B.
Exhaustion
The
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) (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 where correction officials prevented them from using
grievance procedures or where officials themselves failed to
comply with the 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 that said, the
exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are few. An
inmate's subjective belief about the effectiveness of the
grievance process is not an excuse for failing to exhaust
administrative remedies. Likewise, a prisoner's confusion
about the requirements for exhaustion is not grounds to
excuse the exhaustion requirement. Chelette v.
Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000).
Exhaustion
requirements vary from prison to prison because each prison
determines its own system for addressing inmate grievances,
including the requirements for completely exhausting those
administrative remedies. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199, 218 (2007); see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 91.
In
support of their motion, Defendants attach the declaration of
Andrea Brooks-Smith, the Associate Warden's Secretary at
FCC-FC. (#15-1) As part of her duties, Ms. Brooks-Smith is
responsible for responding to inmates' Administrative
Remedy Requests. (Id. at p.1) In her declaration,
Ms. Brooks-Smith explains that all inmate requests and
appeals are electronically stored on a computer-based
information system known as SENTRY. (Id. at p.3)
According
to Ms. Brooks-Smith, during Mr. Houston's incarceration
in the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), he has not
filed any Administrative Remedy Requests or Appeals.
(Id. at pp.4-5) Furthermore, Ms. Brooks-Smith
testifies, the Administrative Remedy Response that Mr.
Houston attached to his complaint in this case is actually an
Administrative Remedy Response to a Request filed by another
federal inmate. (Id. at pp.5, 14, 16-17)
Mr.
Houston has not come forward with any evidence to contradict
Ms. Brooks-Smith's testimony. As a result, there is no
genuine ...