Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00174/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00174-4/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

DEVERICK SCOTT, ADC #131042 PLAINTIFF

v. 5:15CV00174-JM-JJV

RANDY WATSON, Warden,

Varner Unit; et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge James

M. Moody, Jr. Any partymay serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is

to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. 

An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States

District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely

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

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form

1

Case 5:15-cv-00174-JM Document 42 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 6
of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed this action alleging the named Defendants violated his rights by retaliating

against him for his use of the prison grievance system and by failing to properly investigate

retaliatory acts by other prison staff. (Doc. No. 4 at 1-5, 8-10.) The remaining Defendants are Randy

Watson, Moses Jackson, and Terry Miller.1(Doc. Nos. 7, 36.) Now, these Defendants have

motioned for summary judgment by arguing Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies

against them prior to filing this suit. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No. 37) and this

matter is ripe for disposition.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper “if

the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to anymaterial fact and that the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in

1The docket lists this defendant’s name simply as “Miller.” I will direct the Clerk to update

the docket to reflect his full name.

2

Case 5:15-cv-00174-JM Document 42 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 6
a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th

Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the

existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825

(8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party’s allegations must be supported by sufficient probative

evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or

fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a

reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the

outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). 

Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude summary

judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).

III. ANALYSIS

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires an inmate to exhaust prison grievance

procedures before filing suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,

202 (2007); Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion under the PLRA is

mandatory. Jones, 549 U.S. at 211. “[T]o properlyexhaust administrative remedies, prisoners must

‘complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,’

rules that are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself.” Id., 549 U.S. at

218 (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006)). Compliance with a prison’s grievance

procedures is, therefore, all that is required by the PLRA to properly exhaust. Id. Thus, the question

as to whether an inmate has properly exhausted administrative remedies will depend on the specifics

of that particular prison’s grievance policy. See Id.

Plaintiff’s allegations are governed by Arkansas Department of Correction (‘ADC’)

Administrative Directive 14-16. (Doc. No. 33-2.) An inmate who believes he has been wronged is

3

Case 5:15-cv-00174-JM Document 42 Filed 01/04/16 Page 3 of 6
first required to file an informal resolution. (Id. at 5-6.) If the inmate is unsatisfied with the outcome

of the informal resolution, he may proceed to the formal grievance procedure which entitles him to

a response, first from the unit Warden, and then, if desired, from the ADC Deputy Director. (Id. at

8-13.) Inmates must be specific as to their issues and any personnel involved. (Id. at 5-6.)

Defendants provide evidence that only one grievance related to the immediate claims was

exhausted. (Doc. No. 33-1 ¶ 15.) That grievance – VSM-14-3868 – refers, in relevant part, to

Michael Davenport2and Defendant Miller. (Doc. No. 33-3 at 1.) The grievance alleges: (1) on

August 28, 2014, Davenport tore up one of Plaintiff’s grievances and scattered the contents of his 

laundry bag; (2) on an unspecified date Davenport threatened to put rat poison in Plaintiff’s food and

claimed to be affiliated with the ‘crip’ gang; and (3) on another unspecified date Davenport urinated

in tea and Defendant Miller knowingly served the contaminated beverage to Plaintiff. (Id.) No

allegations against either Defendant Watson3or Defendant Jackson are explicitly raised therein. (Id.) 

Prison officials deemed this grievance procedurally deficient because it raised more than one issue.4

(Id. at 2.) Accordingly, they addressed only the allegations against Davenport which arose on

August 28, 2014. (Id.) The allegations against Defendant Miller were never considered. (Doc. No.

33-1 ¶ 15-16.) 

For his part, Plaintiff argues: (1) Defendants Watson and Jackson acted with deliberate

indifference when they failed to investigate Officer Davenport’s alleged misconduct; (2) the ADC

2Officer Davenport was dismissed from this lawsuit after several attempts to serve him were

unsuccessful. (Doc. No. 36.)

3The grievance mentions Warden Watson but makes no claim against him. It states only that 

“[t]hey said to make sure Warden Watson receives this to investigate.” (Doc. No. 33-1 at 1.)

4AdministrativeDirective 14-16 warns inmates that “onlyone problem/issue should be stated 

in the grievance, not multiple problems/issues.” (Doc. No. 33-2 at 5.)

4

Case 5:15-cv-00174-JM Document 42 Filed 01/04/16 Page 4 of 6
grievance policy is designed to frustrate inmates’ ability to exhaust their claims; (3) prison officials

would not have adequately investigated or addressed his claims even if he had adhered to the exact

specifications of the grievance policy; and (4) grievance VSM-14-3868 was written in reference to

an earlier court hearing which raised all of the immediate claims. (Doc. No. 37 at 3-5; Doc. No. 38

at 3.) None of these arguments are persuasive. First, the alleged failure of Defendants Watson and

Jackson to investigate Plaintiff’s claims is irrelevant to the question of whether he properly

exhausted his administrative remedies against any of the remaining defendants. Second, whether

the ADC grievance policy is designed to make exhaustion difficult for inmates is a question beyond

the scope of this suit. Suffice it to say, the policy clearly provides an available method for

administratively exhausting constitutional claims. See 42 USCS § 1997e(a) (holding that prisoners

must exhaust “available” administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court). Third,

Plaintiff’s subjective beliefs about the efficacy of the administrative remedies available to him are

irrelevant. See Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that “[s]ection

1997e(a) says nothing about a prisoner's subjective beliefs, logical or otherwise, about the

administrative remedies that might be available to him.”). Finally, even if Plaintiff’s claims were

first raised in a previous court hearing, he was still required to adhere to ADC grievance policy in

exhausting them for this suit. The evidence establishes that he failed to so. 

Based on the foregoing, I find Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust his claims against

Defendants Watson, Jackson, and Miller. Accordingly, his claims against them should be dismissed

without prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. The Clerk of Court alter the docket to reflect that Defendant Miller is properly “Terry

5

Case 5:15-cv-00174-JM Document 42 Filed 01/04/16 Page 5 of 6
Miller.”

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 33) be GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Randy Watson, Moses Jackson, and Terry

Miller be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

4. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis 

appeal from an Order adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 4th day of January, 2016.

____________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 5:15-cv-00174-JM Document 42 Filed 01/04/16 Page 6 of 6