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.

Chambers v. Arkansas Department of Corrections

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

December 5, 2019

BRAD CHAMBERS, #217212 PLAINTIFF
v.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedures for Filing Objections

         This Recommendation has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. Any party may file objections. To be considered, objections must be filed within 14 days of filing of the Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection.

         Parties who do not object may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record.

         II. Background

         Plaintiff Brad Chambers is currently held at the Pulaski County Detention Facility. He filed this § 1983 lawsuit claiming that on November 5, 2018, while incarcerated at the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), he was attacked by a fellow inmate and that Defendants Ford and West violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him. (#2)

         Defendants have moved for summary judgment, contending that Mr. Chambers failed to fully exhaust the grievance process before filing his complaint in this lawsuit. (#20) Mr. Chambers has responded to the motion. (#24)

         III. Exhaustion

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss any claim raised that was not fully exhausted prior to filing a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (declaring, “[n]o 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) (holding an inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit, and “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”).

         There is no federally mandated grievance process. Instead, each prison or jail is free to establish its own administrative procedure for filing grievances. An inmate's subjective beliefs regarding exhaustion are irrelevant in determining whether administrative procedures are available. Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000).

         IV. Discussion

         During all times relevant to this lawsuit, Administrative Directive (AD) 14-16 was in effect. (#21-1) Under AD 14-16, inmates must fully exhaust their administrative remedies as to all defendants before filing a § 1983 lawsuit. (Id. at 17-18)

         According to the testimony of Terri Brown, the ADC inmate grievance supervisor, she reviewed the nonmedical grievances Mr. Chambers filed during the time period relevant to his claims and found that he filed four such grievances: (TU 18-00891, TU 18-00983, TU 18-00931, TU 18-00933). (#21-7)

         A. Grievance TU 18-00891

         In grievance TU 18-00891, Mr. Chambers complained that after he was attacked by inmate Conkey on November 4, 2018, Defendant West allowed inmate Conkey into barracks 3 the next day, where he again attacked Mr. Chambers. (#21-3, p.1) After the second attack, Defendant Ford placed Mr. Chambers in restrictive housing because Mr. Chambers complained that he no longer felt safe in barracks 3. (#21-3, p.1) Mr. Chambers submitted step-two of grievance TU 18-00891 on November 19, 2018. (#21-3, p.1) The Warden responded on December 20, 2018, finding that ...


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.