Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00292/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00292-0/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

CHAD E. GUESS

ADC #122028 PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 5:19-CV-292-KGB-BD

CHARLES RATCLIFF, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections

This Recommendation has been sent to Judge Kristine G. Baker. Any party may 

file written objections with the Clerk of Court if they disagree with the findings or 

conclusions set out in the Recommendation. To be considered, objections must be filed

within 14 days. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis 

for the objection. 

If parties do not file objections, they risk waiving the right to appeal questions of 

fact. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Baker can adopt this Recommendation without 

independently reviewing the record. 

II. Discussion

A. Background

Plaintiff Chad E. Guess, an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) inmate, 

filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer. (Docket entry #1) He claims 

that Defendants Ratcliff and Yelverton (Defendants) were deliberately indifferent to his 

safety by failing to provide him safety goggles while he worked on a construction project 

Case 5:19-cv-00292-KGB Document 24 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 3
2

at the Tucker Unit. (#1) Mr. Guess sustained an eye injury on July 2, 2019, when debris 

entered his eye as he worked. Prison officials transported Mr. Guess to the emergency 

room after the accident, and an ophthalmologist removed the debris. (#1) 

Defendants have now moved for summary judgment, contending that Mr. Guess 

did not fully exhaust the prison grievance process prior to filing the complaint in this 

case. (#13) Mr. Guess has responded. (#17) 

B. Exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss any claim that was 

not fully exhausted prior to the date the lawsuit was filed. 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) (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) (“If exhaustion was not completed at

the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”). Furthermore, an inmate’s subjective beliefs 

regarding exhaustion are irrelevant in determining whether administrative procedures are 

available. See Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000).

C. Discussion

ADC Administrative Directive 14-16 was in effect when Mr. Guess’s claims 

arose. Under that policy, inmates were required to fully exhaust their administrative 

Case 5:19-cv-00292-KGB Document 24 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 3
3

remedies prior to filing a § 1983 lawsuit. (#13-3, at 17-18) The policy requires inmates to 

file their unit-level form within 15 days of the incident giving rise to the grievance. (Id. at 

5) It is undisputed that Mr. Guess lodged only one non-medical grievance related to the 

July 2, 2019 construction accident: TU-19-00702. (#13-1) He signed and filed that

grievance on August 13, 2019—42 days after the accident. (#13-2) There is no evidence 

to indicate that Mr. Guess’s delay in filing the grievance beyond the time allowed by the 

policy was caused by his physical incapacity or by the actions of prison officials. 

Predictably, the ADC inmate grievance coordinator rejected grievance TU-19-

00702 as untimely. (#13-5) Mr. Guess appealed, but the director agreed that the grievance 

was untimely filed and denied the appeal. (#13-6) Unfortunately for Mr. Guess, grievance 

TU-19-00702 was properly rejected as untimely and, therefore, was never fully 

exhausted. Therefore, the Court must dismiss his claims.

III. Conclusion

The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies (#13) should be GRANTED and the case DISMISSED, without 

prejudice.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-00292-KGB Document 24 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3