Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_18-cv-00197/USCOURTS-ared-5_18-cv-00197-1/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

DON BLACK PLAINTIFF 

ADC #113670 

V. No. 5:18CV00197-DPM-JTR 

GERALDINE CAMPBELL, 

APN, Medical Services, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition has been sent to Chief United 

States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. 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, Judge Marshall can 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 

 In this pro se § 1983 action, Plaintiff Don Black (“Black”), a prisoner in the 

East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 13
2 

alleges that Defendants APN Geraldine Campbell (“Campbell”) and APN Terri 

Moody (“Moody”) violated his constitutional right to receive timely and adequate 

medical care. Specifically, he alleges they allowed months to go by before looking 

for and locating the medical records from his gastroenterologist, who had found that 

Black required hemorrhoid surgery. This resulted in a six-month delay in him 

receiving this surgery. During those six months, Black alleges that he endured severe 

pain and bleeding. Docs. 2 & 5.

1

 

 Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Brief in Support, 

and a Statement of Facts, arguing that all of Black’s claims should be dismissed 

because he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Docs. 23-25. 

Black has filed several Responses. Docs. 28-34. 

 For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

should be denied.2

 1

On March 15, 2019, the Court dismissed: (1) Black’s claims against Correct Care 

Solutions and the ADC; and (2) his pendent state tort claims for assault and battery. Docs. 6 & 7. 

2

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. 

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 

(1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine 

dispute of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Thereafter, the nonmoving party must present 

specific facts demonstrating that there is a material dispute for trial. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c); 

Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 13
3 

II. Discussion 

 A. ADC Requirements for Exhausting Administrative Remedies 

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires prisoners to exhaust all 

available administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 action: “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. 199, 219 (2007). In Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 

(2006), the Court held that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is “mandatory.” See 

also Muhammad v. Mayfield, 933 F.3d 993, 1000 (8th Cir. 2019). 

 The PLRA requires prisoners to: (1) fully and properly exhaust their available 

administrative remedies as to each claim in the complaint; and (2) complete the 

exhaustion process before filing an action in federal court. Jones, 549 U.S. at 211, 

219-20, 223-24; Woodford,, 548 U.S. at 93-95; Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136, 1141-

42 (8th Cir. 2014); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 626-28 (8th Cir. 2003). 

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

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 13
4 

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 comply with the exhaustion 

requirements of the incarcerating facility before he can properly file a § 1983 action. 

 The ADC provides a three-step administrative grievance process. ADC Adm. 

Dir. 14-16 §§ IV(E)-(G) (“AD 14-16”).3

 “If no one responds at Steps One and Two 

– or if the responses at those steps are dissatisfactory – an inmate may appeal to the 

level of ADC’s ‘Chief Deputy/Deputy/Assistant Director’ at Step Three.” 

Muhammad, 933 F.3d at 997-98. For medical grievances, the Step Three appeal goes 

to the Deputy Director for Health and Correctional Programs. AD 14-16 § IV(G)(4). 

 The ADC administrative grievance policy requires that, in connection with 

each claim, a prisoner must “specifically name each individual involved,” and 

include a “brief statement that is specific as to the substance of the issue or complaint

to include the date, place [and] personnel involved or witnesses.” AD 14-16 § 

IV(C)(4) & (E)(2) (emphasis added). The grievance forms themselves contain these 

instructions to ensure prisoners are aware of them. AD 14-16, Att. 1 (“[B]e specific 

as to the complaint, date and place, name of personnel involved and how you were 

 3

Defendants submitted a copy of AD 14-16 with their summary judgment papers. Doc. 25, 

Ex. A, Att. 1. 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 4 of 13
5 

affected.”). Finally, the ADC’s policy cautions prisoners that, if they fail to “exhaust 

their administrative remedies as to all defendants at all levels of the grievance 

procedure ... their lawsuits or claims may be dismissed immediately” under the 

PLRA. AD 14-16 § IV(N); see also § IV(C)(4) & (D)(2) (both advising inmates to 

fully exhaust a grievance prior to filing a lawsuit). 

B. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

 Defendants Campbell and Moody admit that Black proceeded through all 

three steps of the exhaustion process on medical grievance EAM-18-00916, before 

he initiated this action. However, because that grievance failed to specifically name 

either of them or assert any specific wrongdoing against them, they contend it cannot 

be relied on to establish that Black properly exhausted his administrative remedies 

against them.4

 In his Response to Defendants’ Statement of Facts, Black acknowledges that 

all of his claims are based on EAM-18-00916. Doc. 29 ¶ 14. Because both sides 

agree that EAM-18-00916 was fully exhausted, the only remaining issue is whether 

the procedural flaws in EAM-18-00916 prevented the reviewers of that grievance 

 4

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that Defendants must 

prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216. In support of their Motion, Defendants submitted: (1) a Declaration, 

dated May 22, 2019, from Shelly Byers, the ADC’s Assistant Medical Services Manager, Doc. 25, 

Ex. A; and (2) Black’s relevant grievance documents, id., Ex. A, Att. 2.

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 5 of 13
6 

from understanding the nature of Black’s inadequate and delayed medical care 

claims and the specific individuals against whom he was asserting those claims. 

 1. Black’s § 1983 Claims 

 In his Complaint, Black alleges that, on February 3, 2018, an off-site 

gastroenterologist recommended that he have hemorrhoid surgery. Thereafter, 

Campbell and Moody caused him to “endure a prolonged period of serious and 

severe physical pain by having unjustifiably ignored [his] need for surgery and a 

follow up visit/consult/interview.” In a later pleading, Black made it clear this delay 

resulted from their failure or refusal to locate and review his medical records, which 

included a note from his gastroenterologist stating that Black needed hemorrhoid 

surgery.5

 According to Black, it was only after he filed a grievance that Defendants 

located and reviewed his medical records, and then approved the surgery and 

scheduled a follow-up appointment. Doc. 2 at 4-5; Doc. 5 at 1-2. 

 5

On October 1, 2018, Black filed an Amended Complaint in which he alleged that: (1) APN 

Campbell and APN Moody were the only medical personnel who could look over his records and 

approve the hemorrhoid surgery recommended by the gastroenterologist; (2) they had been unable 

to find his medical records from the gastroenterologist for months, even though the records were 

in the infirmary the whole time, and that he notified each of them “about this situation” through 

requests and sick call slips; and (3) even though he was being seen by various ADC medical 

personnel during the six-month delay, they were unable to render adequate medical care because 

his records could not be located, which prevented him from receiving the surgery he required. Doc. 

5 at 1-2. Finally, in his Amended Complaint, Black acknowledged that, on some unspecified date, 

he had “finally” received the hemorrhoid surgery. Id. at 1.

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 6 of 13
7 

 2. Grievance EAM-18-00916 

 On April 4, 2018, Black filed a Step One informal resolution which stated the 

following: 

I went to the G.I. Clinic at [Ouachita] River Unit in Malvern and I seen 

the G.I. Doctor on 2-3-18 and I would just like to know was a followup appointment set for me. 

Doc. 25, Ex. A, Att. 2 at 4. He did not name the specific medical provider who was 

responsible for failing to schedule “a follow-up appointment.” 

 On April 5, 2018, Black received the following response to his informal 

resolution: “Your records have to be reviewed by the on-site provider and if a followup appointment is necessary the recommendation will be made.” Id. 

 On April 19, 2018, Black completed the portion of the ADC grievance form 

required to proceed with a Step Two formal unit-level grievance, and it was assigned 

grievance number “EAM-18-00916.” In completing the Step Two form, Black made 

it clear he had now been waiting “three months” for his follow-up appointment and 

it still had not been scheduled: “I need my records reviewed by the provider. It’s 

been three months already.” Id. He did not specifically name anyone at Step Two, 

and he used the phrase “the provider” to identify those individuals who had not yet 

located and reviewed his medical records, something that was required before “the 

provider” could schedule his “follow-up” appointment with a “G.I. doctor.” 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 7 of 13
8 

 On May 30, 2018, a non-party Health Services Administrator (“HSA”) 

submitted the following Response to EAM-18-00916: 

 After reviewing your records, the results from your GI Clinic 

have been requested three times but have not been received to be 

reviewed by the provider. Due to this fact your grievance is with merit.

I have asked our Medical Records Clerk to request these records again 

so the provider can review them and make any necessary 

recommendations and to let you know of any follow up consults. 

Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Importantly, even though Black had not named the 

specific individuals who had failed to locate and review his medical records and 

schedule a follow-up appointment, the HSA proceeded to investigate Black’s claims 

and determine that his grievance had merit. Thus, the HSA elected not to use Black’s 

failure to name any specific medical providers as a ground for denying the grievance 

based on that procedural defect. 

On May 31, 2018, Black filed his Step Three appeal to the ADC Deputy 

Director. In his appeal, he helpfully noted that “someone” should contact the 

gastroenterologist at his “personal office” because he “may have the records.” Id. 

Rather than denying Black’s appeal on the procedural ground that he still had not 

named the specific individuals who had failed to locate and review his medical 

records and then schedule a follow-up appointment with a gastroenterologist, the 

Deputy Director investigated the matter and identified the individuals that Black had 

only referred to as “the provider.” In his decision, the Deputy Director concluded 

that Black’s complaint about the delay in scheduling his surgery “is with merit”: 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 8 of 13
9 

 A review of your electronic Medical Record indicates on June 

12, 2018, APN Campbell noted that a record review revealed you were 

seen by Dr. Brevings on February 3, 2018, and a recommendation for 

surgery was made. APN Campbell submitted a surgery consult at that 

time. On June 28, 2018, you were seen by APN Moody and made aware 

that you have a consult for surgery and you were given verbal 

instructions regarding your medical treatment. As of July 17, 2018, you 

have a pending appointment for the surgery consult. 

 The medical department found your grievance with merit and 

you were made aware of the GI doctor’s recommendations. Due to the 

delay in scheduling your surgery this appeal is with merit. 

Id. at 6 (Deputy Director’s Step Three Decision dated July 17, 2018) (emphasis 

added). 

 Thus, even though Black did not name or describe the medical providers who 

had created the delay in his medical treatment, the Deputy Director was able to 

identify Campbell and Moody as the individuals responsible for locating and 

reviewing Black’s medical records and scheduling his follow-up appointment with 

a specialist.6

 The Deputy Director’s decision advised Black that: (1) his grievance 

was found to have merit; (2) his hemorrhoid surgery was now scheduled; and (3) 

until it occurred he would receive interim treatment from ADC healthcare providers. 

 

 6

During discovery, both sides will have an opportunity to fully develop the facts regarding 

the actual role and involvement of Campbell and Moody in creating the alleged delay in Black 

receiving the medical care he required for his hemorrhoids. 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 9 of 13
10 

 3. Analysis of Defendants’ Exhaustion Argument 

 It is undisputed that Black did not name Campbell or Moody in any of his 

grievance papers complaining about “the provider” failing to locate and review his 

medical records on a timely basis, and then schedule a follow-up appointment with 

a gastroenterologist. It is also undisputed that the HSA, at Step Two, and the Deputy 

Director, at Step Three, overlooked that serious procedural flaw, investigated the 

claim raised by Black in his grievance, and decided it was “with merit.” Furthermore, 

the Deputy Director identified Campbell and Moody as “the providers” whose job 

involved locating and reviewing Black’s medical records and then scheduling any 

required follow-up appointments with a specialist. 

 Thus, by the time the Deputy Director concluded that Black’s grievance had 

merit, he knew the nature of Black’s claims regarding the delay he experienced in 

receiving medical care, and the names of the two individuals whose jobs required 

them to locate and review Black’s medical records and schedule any follow-up 

appointments with the specialist that needed to examine Black. Accordingly, 

Campbell and Moody have no legal or factual basis for challenging the procedural 

deficiencies in EAM-18-00916 (which the Deputy Director waived before 

personally curing those deficiencies in his Step Three decision) or using them as a 

ground for claiming Black failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 10 of 13
11 

 In Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012), the Court held that 

“the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is satisfied if prison officials decide a 

procedurally flawed grievance on the merits.” The benefits of exhaustion 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.” Id. (quoting Jones, 549 U.S. at 219). As the Court explained in 

Hammett: 

These benefits are fully realized when an inmate pursues the prison 

grievance process to its final stage and receives an adverse decision on 

the merits, even if the decision-maker could have declined to reach the 

merits because of one or more procedural deficiencies. A complete 

administrative record exists, and a reviewing court will have the benefit 

of the agency’s institutional perspective. This rule also takes into 

account the likelihood that prison officials will benefit if given 

discretion to decide, for reasons such as fairness or inmate morale or 

the need to resolve a recurring issue, that ruling on the merits is better 

for the institution and an inmate who has attempted to exhaust available 

prison remedies. 

Id. at 947-48. Accord: Burns, 752 F.3d at 1141 (PLRA exhaustion requirement is 

satisfied where prison officials “decline[d] to enforce their own procedural 

requirements and opt[ed] to consider otherwise-defaulted claims on the merits”); 

Axelson v. Watson, No. 5:15cv241-BSM, 2016 WL 6573956, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 

4, 2016) (“[T]he [claims] in which the failure to name a defendant requires dismissal 

are those [claims] in which the failure ... prevented the ADC from investigating the 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 11 of 13
12 

grievance on the merits.”); Daniels v. Hubbard, No. 5:14cv360-BSM, 2015 WL 

9222627, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Dec, 17, 2015) (where the ADC’s investigation addressed 

the grievant’s concerns and acknowledged a defendant’s involvement, it cannot then 

“resurrect a flaw in grievance procedure after deciding the grievance on the merits”). 

 At this early stage in the case, the only issue before the Court is whether Black 

should be allowed to proceed with the delayed medical care claim contained in his 

fully and properly exhausted grievance against Campbell and Moody. While 

Defendants raise several arguments suggesting Black’s claims against them are 

without merit, they can only be resolved after both sides have had the opportunity to 

conduct discovery.7 See Emery v. Kelley, No. 1:18cv55-DPM, 2019 WL 489094, at 

*1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 7, 2019) (holding that exhaustion requirement was satisfied 

where ADC was able to fully investigate the merits of grievance naming only “ADC 

officials,” and, “if [the defendants] weren’t involved in [the grieved conduct], then 

they can argue that in a motion on the merits”).8

 

 7

On October 23, 2019, the Court vacated the previously set discovery and dispositive 

motions deadlines in light of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of 

exhaustion. Doc. 36. After a final ruling has been entered on the Motion, new deadlines will be 

imposed. 

 8

Black has submitted some of his medical records, which indicate that APN Campbell and 

APN Moody both knew about his complaints concerning the delay to him receiving surgery. 

Furthermore, both of them were in a position to locate and review his medical records and approve 

the surgery. For example, one week after Black received his April 5, 2018 Step One informal 

resolution response notifying him that his “records” needed to be “reviewed” by “the on-site 

provider,” APN Campbell performed a “record review” of Black’s then-incomplete records and 

consulted with the medical records clerk about obtaining the “GI consult” report. Doc. 25, Ex. A, 

Att. 2 at 4; Doc. 29 at 20 (04/12/2018 Health Services Encounter). On April 27, 2018, APN 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 12 of 13
13 

III. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, because Black fully and properly exhausted EAM-18-00916, he 

should be allowed to proceed with the § 1983 claims he is asserting against Campbell 

and Moody, and their Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) be DENIED, and that Black’s claims against them be 

allowed to proceed. 

DATED this 24th day of February, 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Campbell again consulted with the medical records clerk about obtaining the off-site records. Doc. 

29 at 19. Finally, after the HSA found Black’s Step Two grievance “with merit” on May 30, 2018, 

and directed that the records be obtained so that “the provider” could review them and make any 

necessary recommendations, APN Campbell was the one who obtained and reviewed those 

records, and then submitted a surgery consult. Doc. 25, Ex. A, Att. 2 at 5-6. 

This evidence shows that, as early as April 2018, APN Campbell was aware of Black’s 

medical condition and the missing gastroenterologist records, and that she was in a position to 

facilitate locating those records, reviewing them, and making the needed recommendations. The 

fact that APN Campbell took action only after Black alerted ADC officials to the need for 

intervention suggests that she and/or APN Moody may have been able to do so before Black had 

to file a grievance to bring resolution to the matter. 

Case 5:18-cv-00197-DPM Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 13 of 13