Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_09-cv-00011/USCOURTS-ared-1_09-cv-00011-1/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

OLAJUWON HICKS

ADC #122781 PLAINTIFF

V. 1:09CV00011 BSM/JTR

 

BRENT BUTTS, Sergeant

Grimes Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction 

DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

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

S. Miller. Any party may 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 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 United States District Judge,

you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include a “Statement of Necessity”

that sets forth the following:

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

Case 1:09-cv-00011-BSM Document 37 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 6
1

 On November 23, 2009, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file, within thirty

days, a Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and a Statement of Disputed Facts.

See docket entry #34. Importantly, the Court advised Plaintiff that if he failed to timely do so, all

of the facts set forth in Defendants’ summary judgment papers would be deemed admitted pursuant

to Local Rule 56.1(c). Id. 

-2-

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the requested hearing before the

United States District Judge was not offered at the hearing before the

Magistrate Judge. 

 

3. An offer of proof setting forth the details of any testimony or other

evidence (including copies of any documents) desired to be

introduced at the requested hearing before the United States District

Judge. 

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

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff, Olajuwon Hicks, a prisoner in the Delta Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department

of Correction (“ADC”), has commenced this pro se § 1983 action alleging that Defendants failed

to provide him with adequate mental health care while he was in the Grimes Unit. See docket entries

#2 and #10. Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, two Briefs in Support, and a

Statement of Undisputed Facts. See docket entries #31, #32, #33, and #36. Although he has been

given the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff has not filed a Response and a Statement of Disputed Facts.1

The time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, all of the facts set forth in Defendants’ summary

judgment papers are deemed admitted pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(c).

Case 1:09-cv-00011-BSM Document 37 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 6
-3-

II. Admitted Facts

Plaintiff began his incarceration at the Grimes Unit in July of 2008. See docket entries #33

and #36. Over the next several months, he was seen by mental health personnel, who are not

Defendants in this action, numerous times for complaints of depression. Id. Those mental health

providers determined that Plaintiff did not need to be medicated or placed in segregation. Id.

On January 23, 2009, Plaintiff handed Defendant Sergeant Brent Butts an emergency

grievance stating that he felt suicidal, and that he wanted medication and to be placed in segregation.

See docket entry #36, Ex. 10. Defendant Butts delivered the grievance to medical/administrative

personnel, who ultimately denied it on the merits. Id.

On Saturday, January 24, 2009, Defendant Butts came by Plaintiff’s cell and asked how he

was feeling. See docket entry #36, Ex. 9. Plaintiff told him “don’t even worry about it.” Id. at 3.

Nevertheless, Defendant Butts called the mental health staff, who said they would see Plaintiff on

Monday, January 26, 2009. See docket entry #33, Ex. 5. At the Warden’s instructions, Defendant

Butts also immediately placed Plaintiff on suicide watch until he could be evaluated by the mental

health staff. Id. 

On January 26, 2009, mental health staff evaluated Plaintiff and determined that he was not

suicidal and that he did not need to be placed on medication or in segregation. See docket entries

#33 and #36. Accordingly, Plaintiff was immediately taken off suicide watch. Id.

III. Discussion

In his Complaints and deposition testimony, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Butts and

Defendant Justin Parker, Defendant Butt’s supervisor, violated ADC policy and were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs when they failed to: (1) respond to his January 23, 2009

Case 1:09-cv-00011-BSM Document 37 Filed 01/05/10 Page 3 of 6
2

 In his deposition, Plaintiff admitted that he did not have a claim against Defendant

Lieutenant Christopher Brandon, and that he should be dismissed from this action. See docket entry

#36, Ex. 9 at 11-12. 

3

 Plaintiff filed his emergency grievance at approximately 3:00 p.m., on January 23, 2009.

See docket entry #36, Ex. 10. Defendant Butts responded to that grievance at an unspecified time

on January 24, 2009. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether he did so within 24 hours.

-4-

emergency grievance within 24 hours; and (2) check him every fifteen minutes while he was on

suicide watch.2 See docket entries #2, #10, and #36 at Ex. 9. 

The Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on each of these

claims. 

A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Plaintiff filed three grievances, each of which were denied. See docket entry #33, Exs. 5 and

6; docket entry #36, Ex. 10. However, he did not obtain a final appellate ruling on any of those

three grievances until after he commenced this lawsuit on March 3, 2009. Id.

 It is well settled that a prisoner must fully exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing

a § 1983 claim in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th

Cir. 2003); Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000). Thus, Defendants are entitled to

have all of Plaintiff’s claims dismissed, without prejudice, due to his failure to exhaust these claims.

Id. 

B. Failure to Create a Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Defendants do not specifically admit or deny whether they violated ADC polices by failing

to respond to the emergency grievance within 24 hours or check Plaintiff every fifteen minutes while

he was on suicide watch.3

 However, it is well settled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right

to enforce compliance with internal prison rules or regulations. See Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844,

Case 1:09-cv-00011-BSM Document 37 Filed 01/05/10 Page 4 of 6
-5-

847 (8th Cir.2003); Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir.1996). 

Furthermore, Plaintiff conceded in his deposition that he was not harmed by Defendants’

alleged failure to respond to his emergency grievance within 24 hours and/or check him every fifteen

minutes while he was on suicide watch. See docket entry #36, Ex. 9 at 12-14. Thus, he has no

standing to bring an inadequate medical care claim against Defendants. See Johnson v. State of

Missouri, 142 F.3d 1087, 1088 (8th Cir. 1998); Brouhard v. Lee, 125 F.3d 656, 661 (8th Cir. 1997)

(explaining that, to establish standing, a party must have suffered an “injury-in-fact,” fairly traceable

to the defendant's conduct, which is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision).

Finally, in order to prevail on an inadequate medical care claim, a prisoner must prove that:

(1) he had an objectively serious medical need; and (2) prison officials subjectively knew of, but

deliberately disregarded, that serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); 

Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413, 417-18 (8th Cir. 2000); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239

(8th Cir. 1997). Although he has been given the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff has failed to come

forward with any evidence establishing that he had a serious need for mental health treatment on

January 23, 2009. To the contrary, just three days later, on January 26, 2009, mental health

personnel determined that Plaintiff did not need medication or to be placed on suicide watch.

 Additionally, it is undisputed that Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s emergency grievance

by consulting mental health staff, scheduling a mental health evaluation, and placing Plaintiff on

suicide watch. Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence demonstrating that his mental

condition was worsened or adversely affected by any alleged delay in taking these actions. See

Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 646-47 (8th Cir. 2006); Crowley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500, 502

(8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that, in order to defeat summary judgment, a prisoner must come forward

Case 1:09-cv-00011-BSM Document 37 Filed 01/05/10 Page 5 of 6
-6-

with verifying medical evidence establishing the detrimental effect of the alleged delay in medical

treatment). Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, on Plaintiff’s

inadequate medical care claims and these claims should be dismissed, with prejudice. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry #31) be GRANTED, and

this case be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.

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

appeal from any Order adopting this Recommended Disposition would not be taken in good faith.

Dated this 5th day of January, 2010.

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00011-BSM Document 37 Filed 01/05/10 Page 6 of 6