Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01523/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01523-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1523

___________

Brett Surveyor, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States *

Magistrate, Eastern District of *

Arkansas; J. Thomas Ray, United States *

Magistrate, Eastern District of *

Arkansas; John F. Forster, United *

States Magistrate, Eastern District of * Appeal from the United States

Arkansas; Henry L. Jones, Jr., United * District Court for the

States Magistrate, Eastern District of * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Arkansas; H. David Young, United *

States Magistrate, Eastern District of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Arkansas; James M. Moody, United *

States District Judge, Eastern District *

of Arkansas; G. Thomas Eisele, *

United States District Judge, Eastern *

District of Arkansas; Stephen M. *

Reasoner, United States District Judge, *

Eastern District of Arkansas; Susan *

Webber Wright, United States District *

Judge, Eastern District of Arkansas; *

George Howard, Jr., United States *

District Judge, Eastern District of *

Arkansas; William R. Wilson, United *

States District Judge, Eastern District *

of Arkansas; David R. Hansen, Senior *

Judge, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; *

George G. Fagg, Senior Circuit Judge, *

Appellate Case: 05-1523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2007 Entry ID: 3289444
-2-

8th Circuit Court of Appeals; C. Arlen *

Beam, Senior Circuit Judge, 8th *

Circuit Court of Appeals; J. Mallard, *

Corporal, Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2007

Filed: March 19, 2007

___________

Before GRUENDER, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Brett Surveyor filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action naming

numerous federal judges and J. Mallard, a corporal at the Arkansas Department of

Correction (ADC). Surveyor alleged that Mallard used excessive force against him

on July 1, 2002, and then again on July 11 in retaliation for grievances Surveyor had

filed. As to the judicial defendants, Mallard alleged the existence of a conspiracy with

prison officials to violate inmates’ constitutional rights. The district court dismissed

the claims against the federal judges before service of process as legally frivolous, and

granted summary judgment to Mallard after concluding that Surveyor had failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies and that his excessive-force claim was meritless.

Surveyor appeals. We affirm the dismissal of the claims against the federal judges for

the reasons discussed by the district court, but we reverse the grant of summary

judgment as to Mallard. 

As to exhaustion of administrative remedies, the burden was on Mallard to

show that Surveyor failed to exhaust available remedies under ADC regulations, and

we conclude that Mallard failed to do so. See Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 915, 921

Appellate Case: 05-1523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2007 Entry ID: 3289444
-3-

(2007) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Prison Litigation Reform Act

is affirmative defense which defendant must plead and prove). Mallard listed failure

to exhaust as an affirmative defense in his answer, but he did not file a motion to

dismiss based on exhaustion nor did he discuss exhaustion in his motion for summary

judgment. Accordingly, Mallard did not address Surveyor’s contentions that he filed

grievances about the assaults but did not receive any response due to staff shortages,

that Surveyor complained to the inmate grievance supervisor about the lack of

response, and that Surveyor made other unsuccessful efforts to exhaust. See Foulk v.

Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. 2001) (defendant failed to establish lack of

exhaustion at trial where only evidence was inmate’s testimony that he filed

grievance, and that the lack of a response precluded filing grievance appeal; although

testimony indicated plaintiff may have been able to request “emergency grievance”

under rules, term was nowhere explained). On appeal, Surveyor has attached copies

of the grievances he filed against Mallard, and he insists that he appealed these

grievances “through” his letter to the inmate grievance supervisor when he received

no response. On remand the district court should decide the question of exhaustion

after placing the burden on Mallard and permitting the parties to develop the record

as necessary. 

As to the merits of Surveyor’s complaint, we conclude that the record presents

trialworthy issues on the excessive-force claims based on Surveyor’s deposition

testimony. According to Surveyor, on July 1 Mallard grabbed his shirt through the

bars of his cell, and when Surveyor stuck his hands through the cell bars to push

Mallard away, Mallard hit Surveyor’s hands with handcuffs so hard that Surveyor had

to have stitches in one finger. Some days later, on July 11, Mallard threatened to hurt

Surveyor during inmate count. After the count, Mallard told an officer in the booth

to open Surveyor’s cell as he was “fixing to whip [Surveyor’s] ass.” When Surveyor

obeyed Mallard’s order to approach him, Mallard told Surveyor that he had the

“answer” for the grievances Surveyor had written, and hit Surveyor on the side of the

head. According to Surveyor, he did not raise his hand to Mallard until he had been

Appellate Case: 05-1523 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/19/2007 Entry ID: 3289444
-4-

hit once, and he was assuming a defensive posture to avoid a second blow. Surveyor

ultimately grabbed Mallard after he had been hit a second time, in an attempt to

prevent a third blow, which resulted in the two men falling to the ground. Surveyor

testified that after the July 11 beating he was repeatedly taken to the infirmary, and he

continued to receive medication for headaches and back pain. 

Although Mallard presented a differing version of these events, we conclude,

viewing the record in a light most favorable to Surveyor as we must, see Heisler v.

Metro. Council, 339 F.3d 622, 626 (8th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard of

review), that the record presents trialworthy issues as to whether Mallard used force

on July 1 and 11 to harm Surveyor, rather than to restore discipline or to defend

himself, see Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4, 6-7 (1992) (when brutality by guard

is alleged, question is whether force was applied in good faith effort to maintain

discipline or maliciously for very purpose of causing harm; loose teeth, and minor

bruises and swelling on face, resulting from guard’s beating of inmate, are not de

minimis injuries for Eighth Amendment purposes); Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d 1085,

1087-89 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (reversing grant of summary judgment where--

according to inmate--guard and inmate had verbal argument over grievance, guard

threatened to “kick [inmate’s] white ass,” inmate insulted guard and raised his

handcuffed hands to ward off impending blow, guard then struck inmate three times,

and inmate reacted by pushing guard away and picking up broom to protect himself).

Finally, we note that the district court did not address Surveyor’s allegation that

Mallard threatened and assaulted him in retaliation for filing grievances. See Cooper

v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 784 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (allegation that correction

officers threatened inmate’s safety because he used prison grievance system is

actionable retaliation claim under § 1983). 

Appellate Case: 05-1523 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/19/2007 Entry ID: 3289444
-5-

Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Surveyor’s retaliation and excessiveforce claims against Mallard, and we remand as to these claims for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1523 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/19/2007 Entry ID: 3289444