Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_24-cv-00085/USCOURTS-ared-2_24-cv-00085-3/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 

DELTA DIVISION 

MARK BARKER 

ADC #139988 PLAINTIFF 

 

V. NO. 2:24-cv-00085-JM-ERE 

MORIEON KELLY, et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections:

This Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge James M. 

Moody Jr. Any party may file objections if they disagree with the findings or 

conclusions set out in the Recommendation. Any objections filed must: (1) 

specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for the objection; and (2) be 

received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this 

Recommendation. If parties do not file objections, they risk waiving the right to 

appeal questions of fact. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this 

Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. 

II. Background: 

On April 29, 2024, pro se plaintiff Mark Barker, an Arkansas Division of 

Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Doc 2. Mr. Barker alleges that: (1) on November 16, 2023, Defendants J. King and 

Scott Taylor were aware that he had been assigned to a cell with an active water 

Case 2:24-cv-00085-JM Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 6
2 

sprinkler; (2) several hours later, Defendant Taylor forced him to stand naked, 

handcuffed in a “cage” for eight hours, then twisted his right wrist causing injury; 

(3) early the next morning, Defendants D. Mitchell and Morieon Kelly used 

excessive force against him; and (4) Defendants Mitchell and Kelly were 

deliberately indifferent to his medical needs following the incident. Mr. Barker sues 

each Defendant in both his or her individual and official capacity seeking monetary 

damages and injunctive relief. 

Mr. Barker is currently proceeding on: (1) an Eighth Amendment 

unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim against Defendant Taylor; (2) 

excessive force claims against Defendants Taylor, Mitchell, and Kelly; and (3) 

medical deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Mitchell and Kelly. The 

Court previously: (1) dismissed Mr. Barker’s unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement claim against Defendants Taylor and King regarding his assignment to 

a cell with an active sprinkler; and (2) terminated J. King as a party Defendant. Doc. 

20. 

Defendants Kelly, Mitchell, and Taylor have filed a motion for summary 

judgment, brief in support, and statement of facts, arguing that Mr. Barker failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims against them. Docs.38. 39. 40. 

Mr. Barker has not responded to Defendants’ motion and the time for doing so has 

passed. Doc. 41. The motion is now ripe for review. 

Case 2:24-cv-00085-JM Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 6
3 

For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

(Doc. 38) should be GRANTED. 

III. Discussion: 

A. The PLRA Makes Exhaustion Mandatory 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires the Court to dismiss any 

claim raised that was not fully exhausted before filing a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison 

conditions . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility 

until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”); Woodford v. 

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining the proper exhaustion of remedies “means 

using all steps that the [prison] holds out, and doing so properly”); Johnson v. Jones, 

340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding an inmate must exhaust all available 

administrative remedies before filing suit, and “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at 

the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”). 

Importantly, “it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define 

the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). To 

resolve the exhaustion question, the Court must determine: (1) what administrative 

remedies the ADC made available to inmates to bring and resolve claims; and (2) 

whether Mr. Barker fully and properly complied with available administrative 

remedies. 

Case 2:24-cv-00085-JM Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 6
4 

B. The ADC Grievance Procedure 

At all times relevant to this action, the ADC provided a three-step 

administrative grievance process through ADC Administrative Directive 19-34. 

Doc. 40-1. The written policy advises inmates they must exhaust their administrative 

remedies at all levels before filing a § 1983 lawsuit. Id. at 19. 

To fully and properly exhaust administrative remedies, an ADC prisoner must 

file: (1) a “Step One” informal resolution raising the claim with the designated unitlevel problem-solver within fifteen calendar days of the incident; (2) a “Step Two” 

formal unit-level grievance raising the claim with the Warden within three business 

days of the denial of the informal resolution; and (3) an appeal to the appropriate 

ADC Chief Deputy/Deputy/Assistant Director within five working days of the 

Warden’s decision. Id. at 6-14. The grievance process ends when the appropriate 

Chief Deputy/Deputy/Assistant Director renders a written decision or rejects the 

appeal. Id. at 14. 

 To complete the exhaustion process before bringing this lawsuit, Mr. Barker 

was required to present his claim against all Defendants in a timely filed grievance 

and pursue all three steps of the ADC’s grievance process until he received a 

decision on the merits at the final stage. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 (explaining 

that administrative exhaustion “means using all steps that the agency holds out and 

doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)”) (emphasis 

Case 2:24-cv-00085-JM Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 6
5 

in original); Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (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.”). 

C. Mr. Barker’s Grievance History 

Defendants submit the declaration of ADC Inmate Grievance Supervisor Terri 

Grigsby Brown in support of their motion. Doc. 40-2. Ms. Grigsby Brown states that 

she reviewed Mr. Barker’s grievance history and found one grievance that Mr. 

Barker fully exhausted during the time period relevant to this lawsuit – EAM-23-

2206. Doc. 40-2 at 5. 

On December 10, 2023, Mr. Barker submitted grievance EAM-23-2206, 

alleging that a threat had been placed on his life, which he had reported to Corporal 

Hunt and Sergeant Liu (non-parties). Mr. Barker requested placement in protective 

custody and a transfer to another facility. Id. at 8. 

The matters alleged and grieved in grievance EAM-23-2206 are not related to 

the claims raised in this lawsuit. As a result, although Mr. Barker fully pursued 

grievance EAM-23-2206 through each step of the grievance process, he did not 

thereby exhaust his administrative remedies as to his pending claims against 

Defendants Kelly, Mitchell, and Taylor. 

 On this record, there is no genuine issue of material fact on the threshold 

question of whether Mr. Barker fully exhausted his pending claims by asserting them 

Case 2:24-cv-00085-JM Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 6
6 

in the ADC’s grievance process and fully exhausting all available remedies against 

Defendants Kelly, Mitchell, and Taylor before bringing this lawsuit. As a result, 

Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

IV. Conclusion: 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) be GRANTED. 

2. Mr. Barker’s claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. 

3. The Clerk be instructed to close this case. 

DATED 4 December 2024. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:24-cv-00085-JM Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 6 of 6