Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00151/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00151-2/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

MARK SHELBY SIMES/GORDON, PLAINTIFF

ADC # 092909

v. 5:15CV00151-JLH-JJV

WENDY L. KELLY, Deputy Director,

ADC Health and Correctional Programs; 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 5:15-cv-00151-JLH Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Mark Shelby Simes/Gordon (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate of the Arkansas Department of

Correction (“ADC”) and filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges the named

Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs. (Doc. Nos. 2, 9.)

Now, Defendants Estella Bland, Lasonya Griswold, and JenniferHandlyhavemotioned forsummary

judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies against them. (Doc. No.

44.) Plaintiff has not responded and the deadline 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 5:15-cv-00151-JLH Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 6
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

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires an inmate to exhaust prison grievance

procedures before filing suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,

202 (2007); Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion under the PLRA is

mandatory. Jones, 549 U.S. at 211. “[T]o properlyexhaust administrative remedies, prisoners must

‘complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,’

rules that are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself.” Id., 549 U.S. at

218 (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006)). Compliance with a prison’s grievance

procedures is, therefore, all that is required by the PLRA to properly exhaust. Id. Thus, the question

as to whether an inmate has properly exhausted administrative remedies will depend on the specifics

of that particular prison’s grievance policy. See Id.

Plaintiff’s allegations are governed byAdministrative Directive 12-16. (Doc. No. 45-1.) An

inmate who believes he has been wronged is first required to file an informal resolution. (Id. at 5-6.) 

If the inmate is unsatisfied with the outcome of the informal resolution, he may proceed to the formal

grievance procedure which entitles him to a response, first from the unit Warden or Health Services

3

Case 5:15-cv-00151-JLH Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 6
Administrator, and then, if desired, from the ADC Deputy Director. (Id. at 8-13.) Inmates must be

specific as to their issues and any personnel involved. (Id. at 5-6.)

A. Defendant Handly

Defendants state Plaintiff identified three grievances – CU-13-02735, CU-13-02766, and 

CU-13-03190 – pertaining to Handly in discovery. (Doc. Nos. 45-3 at 1; 45-4 at 3.) They argue

these grievances do not exhaust Plaintiff’s claims against Handly because none of them name or

otherwise identify her. I agree. CU-13-02735 and CU-13-02766 identify only Health Services

Administrator “D. Cecil” by name. (Doc. No. 45-2 at 3, 11.) CU-13-03190 does name Defendants

Griswold and Bland, but makes no explicit reference to Defendant Handly. (Id. at 22.) There is also

no evidence that prison officials sua sponte considered Defendant Handly’s conduct in their

responses to any of these grievances. (Id. at 1-2; 9-10; 20-21.)

Based on the foregoing,I conclude Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies against

Defendant Handly.

B. Defendants Griswold and Bland

Plaintiff identified nine grievances – CU-13-02735, CU-13-02754, CU-13-02766, CU-13-

02845, CU-13-03180, CU-13-03190, CU-13-03191, CU-14-00114, and CU-14-00115 – which

implicated either Griswold or Bland. (Doc. Nos. 45-5 at 1; 45-6 at 7; 45-7 at 1; 45-8 at 14.) I have

reviewed these grievances and only one – CU-03190 – identifies Defendants Griswold and Bland.1

(Doc. No. 45-2 at 22.) The question is whether this grievance exhausts any of Plaintiff’s immediate

claims. Defendants contend it does not because it mentions both nurses only for the purpose of

1Prison officials mentioned Defendant Griswold in their responses to CU-13-03180 and CU13-03191. (Doc. No. 45-2 at 17, 23.) Neither grievance makes specific allegations against Griswold

and, in both cases, she appears to be mentioned only for the purpose of reminding Plaintiff that he

had been seen for his medical concerns. 

4

Case 5:15-cv-00151-JLH Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 6
showing that Plaintiff had been examined multiple times. They argue the grievance makes no actual

allegations of wrongdoing against either. It is a close call, but I agree. The relevant text of the

grievance states:

I was seen today by sick call for a on going problem I’ve been experiencing with my

left knee from a injury I suffered on 6/28/13. This makes the third time I have been

seen by sick call for my left knee 7/2/13, 9/11/13, and today. I have been seen once

by Nurse Bland on 9/05/13 and twice by Nurse Griswold on 9/27/13 and 12/26/13

to which she told me to put in a sick call. However, I was told today by Nurse B.

Johnson that I would have to put in 3 consecutive sick calls about (one) problem to

be referred to a provider for further treatment as I was only given some asprins (sic).

These deficient protocals (sic) hinders and delay adequate medical care to my

injuries. Ishouldn’t have to continue going through frivolous weeks of sick call fees

to receive adequate treatment. My knee feels like I tore something as it periodically

swells. I need to see a specialist. 

(Doc. No. 45-2 at 22.) The grievance does not explicitly identify any treatment failure or other

misconduct byDefendant Bland or Griswold. Rather, it alleges the medical protocols are themselves

deficient. Prison officials responded at the unit level by noting x-rays had been ordered on

September 27, 2013, and the nurse who saw Plaintiff on December 28, 2013 (non-party “B.

Johnson”) found no serious medical issues. (Id. at 21.) The deputy director’s response echoed the

unit response while noting Plaintiff had impermissibly tried to raise new issues on appeal. (Id. at

20.)

Defendants correctly argue that merely identifying an individual is insufficient to exhaust

administrative remedies against them. A properly exhausted grievance requires both identification

of the staff member and some allegation of wrongdoing for prison officials to investigate. See

Champion v. Akins, 498 Fed. Appx. 670 (8th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, I find Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies against Defendants Griswold and Bland.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT:

5

Case 5:15-cv-00151-JLH Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 6
1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 44) be GRANTED.

2. Defendants Estella Bland, Lasonya Griswold, and Jennifer Handly be DISMISSED 

without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies against them.

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

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

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 2015.

____________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 5:15-cv-00151-JLH Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 6