Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06112/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06112-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

JAMES EDWARD COX PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB

 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GLADY ESCOBAR, 

Omega Unit; ABIGAIL (MALOCH) MORROW, 

Administration Review Officer, Omega Unit; DEPUTY 

BRADLEY BAKER, Lt., Correctional Officer, Omega 

Unit; SERGEANT KIMBERLY PREVATT, Correctional 

Officer, Omega Unit; MAJOR FREDDIE OTTS, Omega 

Unit; and DOE, Internal Affairs Investigator, Omega Unit DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, James E. Cox (“Cox”), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on November 1, 2023, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 1). The case was 

transferred to this Court by Order entered on November 7, 2023. (ECF No. 3). Cox proceeds 

pro se and in forma pauperis. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. 

Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose 

of making this Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the 

issue of exhaustion, brief, and statement of undisputed facts filed by Defendants Escobar, Baker, 

Otts, and Morrow. (ECF Nos. 26-28). Cox responded to the Motion. (ECF Nos. 42-43). 

Defendants elected not to file a reply. The Motion is ready for decision.

I. BACKGROUND

In Claim One of the Complaint, Cox alleges that on March 15, 2023, in response to him 

talking when a group of inmates had been told to be quiet, Defendant Escobar struck him in the 

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

head. (ECF No. 2 at 5). As a result, Cox developed a knot on his head, suffered numerous 

headaches some severe enough to make him nauseous, and suffered from anxiety. Id. Following 

the grievance process, Cox states that on March 24th, he was seen by Defendant Otts and another 

unidentified internal affairs officer. Id. Cox was questioned about the incident and told a voice 

stress test was used. Id. Cox was given a consent form to sign but the box was already checked 

indicating he consented. Id. When he questioned why this was necessary, he was told by the 

unidentified officer that if he did not sign, he would be sent to the hole for failure to cooperate in 

the investigation. Id. at 6. Defendant Otts just “sat there letting all of this take place, making 

him as guilty of corruption as anyone else involved.” Id.

In Claim Two, Cox alleged that he had to submit multiple requests on dates from February 

15, 2023, to March 20, 2023, to obtain any law library time. (ECF No. 2 at 7). During this entire 

period, Cox indicates he only received two hours of law library time. Id. The “law library” was 

contained in a computer program which Cox indicates he did not know how to operate. Id. 

When he asked Defendant Morrow for assistance, Cox was told he was not allowed to speak. Id. 

From the inmate handbook, Cox indicates he was under the impression that “a clerk of some kind 

(knowledgeable in the program)” would help. Id. In reply to his requests for law library time, 

Cox indicates Defendant Morrow stated her primary job was handling disciplinaries and 

grievances and she would “run the law library when she had time.” Id.

In Claim Three, Cox alleges that on March 9, 2023, he had a Zoom conference call 

scheduled with his attorney. (ECF No. 2 at 9). Because of technical difficulties, the conference 

was done by phone. Despite his protests, Defendant Baker remained in the room—only three feet 

from him—during the entire call. Id. Cox asserts this violated his right to have confidential 

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

conversations with his attorney. Id. Cox was told she remained in the room for security reasons. 

Id. Defendant Baker indicated that if the conference had been by Zoom it would have been 

monitored outside the office via the room’s window. Id. Cox asserts the phone was in clear view 

of the window. Id. During a later phone conference, Cox indicates he was monitored through 

the window. Id. 

In Claim Four, Cox asserts that on March 22, 2023, Defendant Prevatt read his legal mail

when he asked her to sign and seal a legal envelope addressed to Phil Votaw and Associates, 

Attorney at Law. (ECF No. 2 at 10). Defendant Prevatt pulled the letter out, put on her reading 

glasses, and began reading. Id. When Cox protested, Defendant Prevatt responded that she was 

supposed to read it to ensure it was legal mail. Id. Cox indicates the letter was about this lawsuit. 

Id. Cox contends this violated his attorney/client privilege. Id. He maintains the letter should 

have only been checked for contraband. Id. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences 

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

"Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with 

the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a 

genuine issue of material fact exists.” Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 

602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical 

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. "They must show there is sufficient 

evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." Nat’l Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). "A case founded on speculation or suspicion 

is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment." Id. (citing, Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 

621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is 

blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not 

adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott 

v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants have now moved for summary judgment contending Cox failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies as to Defendants Escobar, Baker, Otts, and Morrow prior to filing this 

lawsuit.

A. The Exhaustion Requirement

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides: “[n]o action 

shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other 

Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Exhaustion is mandatory. Porter v. 

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Supreme Court 

concluded “to properly exhaust administrative remedies prisoners must complete the 

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.” Id. at 218 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court stated that the “level of detail necessary 

in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to system and claim 

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
5

to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper 

exhaustion.” Id. A prisoner’s remedies are exhausted “when [the] inmate pursues the prison 

grievance process to its final stage and receives an adverse decision on the merits.” Hammett v. 

Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012).

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized only two exceptions to the PLRA 

exhaustion requirement: (1) when officials have prevented prisoners from utilizing the grievance 

procedures, or (2) when the officials themselves fail to comply with the grievance procedures. See 

Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining a prisoner is only required to 

exhaust those administrative remedies that are “available” and any remedies that prison officials 

prevent a prisoner from utilizing are not considered available).

B. The Grievance Procedure

The Arkansas Division of Community Correction (“ACC”) resident grievance and appeal 

process is set forth in Administrative Directive (“AD”) 15-08. (ECF No. 26-2 at 1). “The 

grievance procedure must be posted on the employee and resident bulletin boards, and in the 

facility law library. Residents and employees must be given written notification of the grievance 

procedure upon arrival at the center.” Id. at 2. 

Step One of the procedure requires residents to “first attempt to informally resolve 

complaints, grievances, problems, or incidents by submitting a ‘Complaint Form for Residents’ or 

discussing the matter with an appropriate person such as a counselor, the Residential Supervisor 

assigned to his/her housing area, or the Shift Supervisor on duty.” Id. at 3. If an informal 

resolution does not occur or no response has been made to the informal complaint, “the resident 

may submit a formal written grievance within 5 days of the occurrence to the Grievance Officer 

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
6

or the Center Supervisor’s Designee (Designee) on a ‘Grievance Form for Residents.’” Id.

(emphasis added). Receipt of the formal grievance is to be acknowledged. Id. A written 

response must be given by the Grievance Officer or Designee within 30 calendar days unless the 

period has been extended. Id. at 4.

Step Two of the grievance procedure provides that “[a]ny grievance decision can be 

appealed to the Center Supervisor through the normal chain of command.” (ECF No. 26-2 at 4). 

If unsatisfied with this decision, “[t]he grievant is entitled to appeal the Center Supervisor’s 

decision within 5 days after receipt of the Center Supervisor’s decision by using the Resident 

Appeal Form.” Id. 

The Deputy Director of Residential Services has thirty calendar days to “review the initial 

grievance, the Center Supervisor’s investigation and response, and the resident’s appeal, and if 

necessary, conduct a separate investigation of the matter and respond to the grievant in writing.” 

(ECF No. 26-2 at 4). The decision of the Deputy Director of Residential Services if final. Id. 

The grievance officer is charged with maintaining a log “containing pertinent information 

regarding the filing, acknowledgement, and dispositive of grievances.” Id. 

C. Application

As a preliminary matter, § 1997e(a) clearly applies here: (1) Cox was incarcerated at the 

Omega Supervision Sanction Center (“Omega”), an ACC facility, at the time he filed his 

Complaint; and (2) the factual predicate of his claims stem from occurrences at Omega. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a). 

The Court turns to the question of whether Cox exhausted his administrative remedies prior 

to filing suit. According to the declaration of Christopher Laginja (“Laginja”), an Administrative 

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
7

Review Officer at Omega, once a formal written grievance has been filed “all aspects of the 

grievance procedure must be followed.” (ECF No. 26-1 at 2). “The decision of the Deputy 

Director of Residential Services is final and concludes the grievance process.” Id.

Having reviewed Cox’s grievances file, Laginja indicates Cox filed two grievances prior 

to filing this lawsuit. (ECF No. 26-1 at 3). Grievance OM-23-00144 involves Defendant 

Prevatt’s reading Cox’s legal mail. Id. In Grievance OM-23-00145, “Cox grieves that he did 

not receive a response to a complaint he wrote, and he recites the contents of the complaint he 

previously submitted.” Id. Laginja asserts that “[t]his grievance does not exhaust any claim in 

this lawsuit.” Id. 

Laginja asserts he has no record of the following: 

(1) any grievance concerning Defendant Escobar striking Cox on the head or

Defendant Otts’ involvement in the investigation of that alleged incident; 

(2) a grievance concerning Defendant Morrow’s failure to provide Cox adequate

access to a law library “exhausted through appeal per policy;” and

(3) a grievance concerning Defendant Baker listening to Cox’s phone call with his 

lawyer.

Id. at 3 (emphasis added). Laginja therefore maintains Cox “has not fully exhausted his 

claims” as to Defendants Escobar, Otts, Morrow, or Baker.

As Defendants apparently concede Cox has fully exhausted his claims as to Defendant 

Prevatt, the Court need not examine Grievance OM-23-00144.1

 Grievance OM-23-00145 was 

1 This grievance shows it was rejected by Defendant Morrow despite it saying Cox had spoken to 

the supervisor on duty, Defendant Baker. (ECF No. 26-3 at 1). Cox submitted a formal grievance 

which is marked received on March 25, 2023, and assigned grievance number OM-23-00144. 

(ECF No. 42 at 10). On March 28th, Defendant Morrow wrote that the grievance was rejected as 

“either non-grievable, untimely, duplicative, frivolous, or vexatious.” Id. at 11.

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
8

submitted by Cox on March 27, 2023, and provides as follows:

After speaking to SOD (LT Baker) about original complaint I wrote a complaint 

about no review on alleged violation of rights, in 5 day timeframe. The original 

was said to never been received as answer on complaint #2 about this. Original 

complaint was dropped on Fri 3-17-23 at chow. It essentially stated: on 3-21-23 

I received a reply for request sent to ARO for law library and a 1983 form, at or 

about 7:10pm[.] The request stated: I would like to request law library, also need 

to request a 1983 form. You (Mrs. Maloch) told me I could use the affidavit form 

instead, because you needed to make new copies of 1983 form. Would just like to 

have 1983 from. Thanks: I never received any reply about 1983 form also I asked 

how to file motion for [ineffective] counsel while in your office you told me to use 

affidavit for that also. This is inadequate law library, and violates my rights.

(ECF No. 26-3 at 3).

On March 28, 2023, the grievance was acknowledged by Defendant Morrow and sent to 

Warden White. (ECF No. 26-3 at 4). A response to the grievance was due by April 25, 2023, 

which Cox indicates was after his release date of April 21, 2023. (ECF No. 42 at 14). On April 

26, 2023, Defendant Morrow entered a note that says: “After further review of this grievances, it 

was determined to have been rejected instead of processed, due to the complaint about not getting 

seen in the Law Library in a timely manner, and the grievance was about him needing a 1983 

form.” (ECF No. 26-3 at 4).

In his summary judgment response, Cox argues the grievance procedure was manipulated

either by the Defendants or the Administration which impeded his efforts to exhaust. 

Cox has submitted a Complaint Form dated March 17, 2023, about Defendant Escobar 

striking him in the head on March 15th. (ECF No. 42 at 3). The Complaint form is marked as 

having been received on March 20th and Cox as having been seen on March 22nd. The response 

was this incident is being investigated. Id. On March 23rd, Cox checked the box that his 

complaint had not been resolved. Id. Cox has not included in his exhibits a formal Grievance

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
9

Form on this issue. 

However, Cox states he never received notification about the results of the investigation. 

(ECF No. 42 at 23). He argues the investigation impeded his time for filing a grievance and points 

to the section of AD 15-08 providing that the time limits for responding may be extended in five 

business day increment to complete investigative work. Id. This section provides that residents 

must receive written notice of “such extension prior to the expiration of the 30-calendar day time 

period in which the Center Supervisor or Deputy Director of Residential Services must respond.” 

Id. Additionally, the provision states that “[e]xpiration of the time limit at any stage of the process 

may be considered by the grievant to be a denial and entitles the grievant to move to the next level 

of the process, unless the grievance has received written notice of an extension.” Id.

The Court agrees with Cox that it is somewhat confusing to be required to proceed with a 

formal grievance while an investigation is pending. However, the section of AD 15-08, Cox relies 

on for extending the time applies only to the response time to a grievance not to the time for filing 

a grievance. Cox does not indicate he received notice of any extensions of time due to the 

investigation. Moreover, in the same paragraph grievants are advised that they may treat any 

failure to respond in a timely manner as a denial and proceed with the grievance procedure. Cox 

failed to exhaust the grievance procedures with respect to Defendant Escobar. As this is the only 

occurrence Defendant Otts was alleged to have been involved in, Cox has also failed to exhaust 

his administrative remedies as to Defendant Otts.

Cox submitted a Complaint Form dated March 22, 2023, in which he stated he had 

submitted a Complaint form on March 14th regarding Defendant Baker remaining in the room 

during his phone conference with his attorney. (ECF No. 42 at 9). The form was marked 

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:

<pageID>
10

reviewed by Defendant Baker, the same person he was complaining about on March 16th.

2

 Id. 

Cox indicates he was told by Defendant Baker that she had to remain in the room because it was a 

security risk to leave him alone in the room with the phone. Id. at 8. Cox noted the phone was 

in clear sight of the window. Id. Cox wrote that when he had another phone conference on 

March 22nd, Correctional Officer Henson had stood outside the window. Id. at 9. Cox asserts 

this clearly contradicts the statements made by Defendant Baker. Id. Cox maintains his 

attorney/client privilege was violated as were his residents’ rights “according to #14, #17 and #5.” 

Id.

The March 22, 2023, Complaint Form is marked received and as Cox being seen on March 

24th. (ECF No. 42 at 8). The response is that the first phone call was addressed in a prior 

Complaint Form. Id. Further it was stated the “whole issue” was outside the five-day timeframe. 

Id. The same day, Cox checked the box as indicating the issue had no been resolved and signed 

and dated the form. Id. Cox has not included in his exhibits a formal Grievance Form on this 

issue. Cox has therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to Defendant 

Baker.

Cox submitted a Complaint form dated March 23, 2023, in which he states he has not 

received a response to his prior complaint about “inadequate law library” within the five-day

period. (ECF No. 42 at 4). He then writes that he would like to see the process followed as stated 

in the handbook. Id. He indicates he requested law library time and was told by Defendant 

Morrow that it was not her priority and the grievance process took precedence because of the time 

2 Undoubtedly allowing the review of a grievance by the subject of the grievance greatly 

diminishing the chances of resolution. However, nothing in AD 15-08 seems to preclude this 

practice.

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID

#: <pageID>
11

frame. Id. The form is marked received on March 24th and Cox as having been seen on March 

27th by Defendant Morrow, the individual he was complaining about. Id. Defendant Morrow 

wrote that she had never received a complaint from Cox regarding the law library. Id. She notes, 

however, that he had been to the law library twice, and he was on the list to go a third time. Id.

Defendant Morrow noted there was no set time frame for Cox to be given access to the law library, 

“it’s [illegible] off the list.” Id. Cox checked the box indicating the “complaint has NOT been 

resolved and I want to pursue this matter (options include submitting a grievance).” Id. Cox 

signed the below the checked box on March 27th. Id. Cox has not submitted a formal Grievance 

Form on this issue. Cox failed to exhaust his administrative grievances regarding Defendant 

Morrow.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, it is recommended that the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment be GRANTED as to all claims asserted against Defendants Escobar, Baker, Otts, and 

Morrow.

This leaves for later resolution Cox’s claim against Defendant Prevatt.

Status of the Referral: This case should remain referred for all matters not 

recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.

The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in 

which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID

#: <pageID>
12

The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger 

de novo review by the district court.

DATED this 13th day of November 2024.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant 

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:23-cv-06112-SOH-BAB Document 49 Filed 11/13/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID

#: <pageID>