Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_15-cv-00033/USCOURTS-ared-1_15-cv-00033-1/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

LISA RYAN MURPHY, PLAINTIFFS

ADC # 760343; et al.

v. 1:15CV00033-JLH-JJV

BANKS, Warden,

Grimes Unit, ADC; et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon

Holmes. Anypartymayserve 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 either the District Judge or

Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:

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

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new 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 1:15-cv-00033-JLH Document 81 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Lisa Murphy and Jakita Murphy (“Plaintiffs”), both inmates of the Arkansas Department of

Correction (“ADC”), jointly filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. They allege that the conditions of

their confinement violated their constitutional rights. (Doc. No. 62 at 6.) Pending is Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) wherein they argue that Plaintiffs failed to

exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing this suit. (Doc. No. 75.) Plaintiffs have

not responded to the Motion and the time for doing so has passed.

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

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

2

Case 1:15-cv-00033-JLH Document 81 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiffs allege that (1) their cells in administrative segregation were, at varying times, either

extremely cold or intensely warm; (2) Defendants Heier, West, and Ming took Plaintiff Lisa

Murphy’s clothes and gave her only a smock and suicide blanket, neither of which was adequate to

protect her from the cold; (3) Defendants Heier, West, Case, and Ming failed to move Plaintiffs to

heated cells when temperatures fell; and (4) Warden Faust, despite an alleged willingness to

authorize additional blankets for other inmates, declined to do so for Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 62 at 7-8.)

Defendants contend that none of these claims were properly exhausted.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that: “No 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The purposes of the exhaustion requirement include

“allowing a prison to address complaints about the program it administers before being subjected

to suit, reducing litigation to the extent complaints are satisfactorily resolved, and improving

litigation that does occur by leading to the preparation of a useful record.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.

3

Case 1:15-cv-00033-JLH Document 81 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 5
199, 219 (2007); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 89–91 (2006).

The PLRA requires inmates to (1) fully and properly exhaust their administrative remedies

as to each claim in the complaint; and (2) complete the exhaustion process prior to filing an action

in federal court. Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d

884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000). Importantly, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “it is the prison's

requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones, 549 U.S.

at 218; see also 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”). Thus, to satisfy the PLRA, a prisoner must fully and properly comply with the specific

procedural requirements of the incarcerating facility. Id.

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are governed byAdministrative Directive 14-

16. (Doc. No. 76 at 5.) The directive requires an inmate who believes she has been wronged to

file an informal resolution. (Doc. No. 77-3 at 5-6.) If the inmate is unsatisfied with the outcome of

the informal resolution, she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure which entitles her to a

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

8-11.) Inmates must be specific as to their issues and any personnel involved. (Id. at 5.) Defendants

have provided the affidavit of ADC Grievance Coordinator Barbara Williams. (Doc. No. 77-4.) Ms.

Williams, after reviewing the grievance files of both Plaintiffs, asserts that neither has exhausted any

grievances relevant to the claims in this case. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiffs have failed to offer any

contradicting argument or evidence.1

Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative

1

If Plaintiffs have evidence indicating that either of them exhausted anyof the pending claims

prior to filing this action, they may include it in their objections to this recommendation. 

4

Case 1:15-cv-00033-JLH Document 81 Filed 08/26/15 Page 4 of 5
remedies against Defendants before filing this suit. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion should be

granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 75) be GRANTED.

2. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Faust, Joseph Heier, Ming, West, and 

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

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

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

Dated this 25th day of August, 2015. 

___________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:15-cv-00033-JLH Document 81 Filed 08/26/15 Page 5 of 5