Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-00875/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-00875-0/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

EDDIE POINDEXTER PLAINTIFF 

ADC #121353 

V. Case No. 4:23-CV-00875-KGB-BBM 

A. WILKINS, Capt., 

Tucker Unit, et al. DEFENDANTS 

 RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to 

Chief United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to 

all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must (1) specifically 

explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk 

of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not 

file objections, Chief Judge Baker may adopt this Recommendation without independently 

reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to 

appeal questions of fact. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff Eddie Poindexter (“Poindexter”), a prisoner in the 

Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), filed a pro se Complaint and 

Addendum pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 2–3). A second Addendum, Notice, and 

Supplemental Complaint followed. (Docs. 6-1, 8, and 9). Poindexter alleged that various 

ADC employees and fellow inmates committed “human rights” violations against him. 

Case 4:23-cv-00875-KGB Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 1 of 4
2 

And, in his Supplemental Complaint, he attached grievances complaining, in part, that his 

“medical diet script” was discontinued in March 2024. (Doc. 9 at 2–11). 

 The Court conducted an initial screening of Poindexter’s pleadings pursuant to the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and noted several deficiencies.1

 (Doc. 10). As 

relevant to this screening Recommendation, the Court noted that Poindexter could not 

pursue the allegations contained in his Supplemental Complaint that occurred after he filed 

his original Complaint in September 2023 because he could not have exhausted those 

claims before initiating this action. Id. at 9–10. The Court also noted that Poindexter would 

need to choose whether to proceed on “(1) unrelated claims against a single defendant; or 

(2) related claims against multiple defendants.” Id. at 10 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2)) 

(emphasis in original). Poindexter was given leave to file an amended complaint and placed 

on notice that an amended complaint would supersede all previous pleadings. Id. (citing In 

re Atlas Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000)). 

 On June 6, 2024, Poindexter filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12). He did not 

provide a case number on that document but indicated that it should be filed in his “CV–

human rights case.” Id. at 19. Accordingly, the document was docketed as an Amended 

Complaint in this action. 

1

 The PLRA requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any claims that: 

(a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b). 

Case 4:23-cv-00875-KGB Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 2 of 4
3 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Allegations in Amended Complaint 

In his Amended Complaint, Poindexter alleges that, “on or around April the 15th

2024,” Dr. Beck “discontinued [his] medical diet,” and Charlotte Gardner and other 

medical staff either “failed to assist” Poindexter or “encouraged” Dr. Beck to discontinue 

the script. (Doc. 12 at 3, 6–18). For relief, he asks that his medical diet be renewed and for 

$250,000 in damages. Id. at 4. 

B. Screening 

Because all events in Poindexter’s superseding Amended Complaint occurred after

Poindexter initiated this action in September 2023, he could not have exhausted his 

administrative remedies for those events before bringing this action. Under wellestablished Eighth Circuit case law, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies 

before initiating a § 1983 action. Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 626–28 (8th Cir. 2003) 

(“Under the plain language of section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative 

remedies before filing suit in federal court...If exhaustion was not completed at the time 

of filing, dismissal is mandatory.”) (emphasis in original). 

Although failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, it is appropriate for the Court 

to dismiss unexhausted claims upon screening when it is apparent from the face of the 

Complaint that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Jones v. 

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214–15 (2007); Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(“Under Jones, [] a court can dismiss a case prior to service on defendants for failure to 

state a claim, predicated on failure to exhaust, if the complaint itself makes clear that the 

Case 4:23-cv-00875-KGB Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 3 of 4
4 

prisoner failed to exhaust.”). Because Poindexter could not have possibly exhausted his 

post-Complaint claims before initiating this § 1983 action, he cannot pursue those claims 

in this action. 

III. CONCLUSION 

After careful consideration of Poindexter’s superseding Amended Complaint (Doc. 

12), the Court finds that Poindexter has stated only unexhausted claims against the 

Defendants. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. Poindexter’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) be DISMISSED, without 

prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.2

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

pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation and accompanying 

judgment would not be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 16th day of July, 2024. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

 Although Jones counsels that an unexhausted claim on the face of the complaint may be dismissed 

“for failure to state a claim,” Jones, 549 U.S. at 214–15, a “strike” under the PLRA is not recommended in 

this case. See Owens v. Isaac, 487 F.3d 561, 563 (8th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (finding that a case 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies “is not a strike under section 

1915(g).”). 

Case 4:23-cv-00875-KGB Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 4 of 4