Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00265/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00265-2/pdf.json

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

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

NICHOLAS HOLLIS, PLAINTIFF 

ADC #114535 

v. 5:19-cv-00265-JM-JJV 

ARKANSAS BOARD OF CORRECTION, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTRUCTIONS 

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

James M. Moody, Jr. Any party may serve 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 the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

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

 2. Why the evidence proffered at the 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 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 12
2 

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 

Nicholas Hollis (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Division of 

Correction (“ADC”). He has filed a pro se Amended Complaint alleging Defendants violated the 

Civil Rights Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide him with adequate medical care for spinal stenosis and 

peripheral neuropathy and refusing to give him a wheelchair, walker, and other accommodations 

for those issues. (Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiff brings these claims against Dr. Horan, Health Services 

Administrator Chisom, Director of Nurses Moore, Correct Care Solutions, ADC Deputy Director 

Griffin, Warden Page, Captain Clark, and Sergeant McCoy.1

 (Id.) 

Defendants have filed two Motions for Summary Judgment arguing all claims against them 

should be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative 

remedies before filing this lawsuit. (Doc. Nos. 47, 48, 49, 76, 77, 78, 79.) Plaintiff has 

 

1

 All other claims raised in the Amended Complaint were dismissed without prejudice during 

screening mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Docs. Nos. 10, 25.) 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 12
3 

responded to both Motions.2 (Doc. Nos. 67, 68, 69, 85, 86, 87, 88.) After carefully reviewing 

the pleadings and for the following reasons, I conclude the Motions for Summary Judgment should 

be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against all remaining Defendants should be DISMISSED 

without prejudice. 

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 any material 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 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 

 

2

 Plaintiff says the Motions for Summary Judgment are premature because he has not completed 

discovery. (Doc. Nos. 69, 87.) But, Plaintiff has not explained what additional discovery he 

needs to properly respond to Defendants’ exhaustion argument. To the contrary, Plaintiff and 

Defendants have provided copies of the relevant exhaustion documents with their summary 

judgment pleadings. (Doc. Nos. 21, 48, 76, 77.) Plaintiff’s desire to conduct discovery on the 

merits of his claim is irrelevant to the pending Motions. 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 12
4 

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); Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2018). Exhaustion 

under the PLRA is mandatory and is required for all actions “brought with respect to prison 

conditions, whether under § 1983 or any other Federal law.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 

(2002); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (“exhaustion of available administrative 

remedies is required for any suit challenging prison conditions, not just for suits under § 1983”). 

Thus, the exhaustion requirement applies to Plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims, as well as his § 1983 

claim. 

 To properly exhaust 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.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. “The level of detail 

necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to system 

and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of 

proper exhaustion.” Muhammad v. Mayfield, 933 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2019); King v. Iowa 

Dept. of Corr., 598 F.3d 1015, 1054 (8th Cir. 2010). Thus, whether an inmate has properly 

exhausted administrative remedies will depend on the specific requirements of the prison’s 

grievance policy. 

 The ADC grievance policy in effect at the time of the alleged constitutional violations was 

Administrative Directive 14-16. (Doc. Nos. 48-1, 48-3.) Pursuant to that Directive, the first step 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 4 of 12
5 

is for an inmate to file an informal resolution with the designated problem solver within fifteen 

days of the incident. (Doc. No. 48-1 at 5-8.) The form must include “a brief statement that is 

specific as to the substance of the issue or complaint to include the date, place, personnel involved 

or witnesses, and how the policy or incident affected the inmate submitting the form.” (Id. at 5-

6.) Following an attempt at informal resolution, an inmate may proceed to step two by filing a 

formal grievance with the Health Services Administrator (“HSA”) within three working days of 

receiving a response to the informal resolution. (Id. at 8-11.) The HSA must provide a written 

response within twenty working days of receiving the formal grievance. (Id. at 10.) An inmate 

may then proceed to step three by appealing, within five working days, to the ADC Deputy 

Director for Health and Correctional Programs (“ADC Deputy Director”). (Id. at 10-12.) “A 

written decision or rejection of an appeal at this level is the end of the grievance process.” (Id. at 

12.) 

 In this case, it is important to note that if ADC personnel are late in responding at step two 

or three, prisoners may proceed to the next step without a response. (Id. at 7, 8, 10.) And, 

Administrative Directive 14-16 includes the following warning: 

Inmates are hereby advised that they must exhaust their administrative remedies as 

to all defendants at all levels of the grievance procedures before filing a Section 

1983 lawsuit and Claims Commission claim. If this is not done, their lawsuits or 

claims may be dismissed immediately. 

(Id. at 17) (emphasis added). 

 The parties agree TU-19-574 and TU-19-550 are the only relevant grievances Plaintiff filed 

about the claims he is bringing in this lawsuit. (Doc. Nos. 21, 48-3, 68, 69, 76, 77-2.) Because 

the procedural history of these two grievances is complicated, I will address them separately. 

A. TU-19-574 

 On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed grievance TU-19-574 alleging Defendants Dr. Horan and 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 5 of 12
6 

Captain Clark wrongfully seized his wheelchair. (Doc. Nos. 21 at 17-23, 48-1, 68, 77-4.) An 

acknowledgment form stated Plaintiff would receive the HSA’s response on or before August 12, 

2019. (Doc. No. 21 at 18.) When Plaintiff did not receive a response by that date, he appealed 

to the ADC Deputy Director without a ruling from the HSA. (Id. at 19.) Instead of waiting for 

the ADC Deputy Director’s ruling, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 14, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) 

On August 16, 2019, the HSA entered a late decision concluding the grievance had no merit. (Id. 

at 20-21.) On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff appealed the HSA’s merits determination to the ADC 

Deputy Director. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff actually had two appeals of TU-19-574 pending before 

the ADC Deputy Director (i.e., his appeal without a ruling from the HSA and his appeal of the 

HSA’s ruling). The ADC Deputy Director rejected the appeals as being untimely filed on 

September 27, 2019.3 (Id. at 23.) 

 The PLRA requires an inmate to complete the exhaustion process before filing a lawsuit in 

federal court. 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). Plaintiff argues his exhaustion of TU-19-574 was timely 

because he completed the process before he filed his Amended Complaint on October 23, 2019. 

(Doc. Nos. 8, 68, 69, 87.) But, the law on this point is clear. “Under the plain language of 

section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal 

court.” Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in the original). Dismissal 

 

3 From my calculations, it appears the ADC Deputy Director’s conclusion that the appeals were 

untimely filed was incorrect. The HSA’s response was due on August 12, 2019. (Doc. No. 21 at 

18.) When Plaintiff did not receive a response by that date, he filed an appeal that was stamped 

received by the ADC Deputy Director’s office on August 16, 2019 - which is within five working 

days as required by Admin. Dir. 14-16 § IV(F)(8). (Doc. Nos. 21 at 18, 19, 22, 48-1 at 10). The 

HSA’s decision on the merits was dated August 16, 2019, but Plaintiff wrote on that document 

that he did not receive it until August 26, 2019. (Doc. No. 21 at 20, 21.) He appealed it the same 

day, and the ADC Deputy Director’s office stamped it received on August 29, 2019 - which is also 

within five working days as required by Admin. Dir. 14-16 § IV(G). (Id.; 48-1 at 11.) 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 6 of 12
7 

is mandatory if “exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing.” Id.; see also Booth v. 

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733 (2001) (the PLRA requires prisoners to complete exhaustion “before 

suing over prison conditions”); Harris v. Kemna, No. 05-2746, 2005 WL 3159569 (8th Cir. Nov. 

29. 2005) (unpublished opinion) (affirming dismissal when exhaustion was not complete at the 

time of filing). And, the ADC’s grievance policy reminds prisoners they “must fully exhaust the 

grievance prior to filing a lawsuit.” (Doc. 48-1 at 4-5.) Because Plaintiff completed the final 

steps of TU-19-574 after he commenced this lawsuit on August 14, 2019, it cannot be considered. 

B. TU-19-550 

 The procedural history of TU-19-550 is complicated. As will be discussed, Plaintiff 

attempted to file three appeals of this grievance to the ADC Deputy Director. 

 On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed informal resolution TU-19-550 alleging Defendant Moore 

refused to renew his scripts authorizing him to have a wheelchair, wedge, double mat, extra 

blankets, and extra toilet paper. (Doc. Nos. 21 at 7-16, 48-2, 76, 77.) The problem solver’s 

response was due three working days later. (Doc. No. 48-1 at 6-7.) When Plaintiff did not 

receive her response, he filed a formal grievance on July 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 21 at 8.) On July 

8, 2019, the HSA sent Plaintiff an acknowledgment form stating he would receive a response on 

or before August 5, 2019. (Id. at 10.) On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff sent an appeal (“appeal 

one”) to the ADC Deputy Director explaining that it was 10:05 p.m., and he had not received the 

HSA’s response as stated in the acknowledgement form. (Id. at 10-11.) Plaintiff wrote his 

appeal on the HSA’s acknowledgment form, and he included a letter stating, in part: “I am sending 

you my Acknowledgement of grievance because I don’t know what else to send you.” (Id.) On 

August 13, 2019, (which was the day before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit) the ADC Deputy Director 

rejected appeal one because Plaintiff did not include a copy of his grievance, as required by the 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 7 of 12
8 

ADC’s grievance policy. (Id. at 14.) Specifically, Administrative Directive 14-16 § IV(G)(2) 

states an appeal to the ADC Deputy Director must include the original grievance and the 

acknowledgment form demonstrating when the HSA’s response was due. (Doc. 48-1 at 11.) 

And, that section cautions: “If these two (2) pages are not submitted with the inmate’s appeal 

portion completed, the appeal may be returned to the inmate as rejected.” (Id.) Exhaustion 

under the PLRA means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly.” 

Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Jones, 549 U.S. at 218 (“it is the 

prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion”). It 

is undisputed that Plaintiff did not do so. 

 And, importantly, Plaintiff has not offered any explanation why he was unable to include 

a copy of his grievance with his August 5, 2019 appeal to the ADC Deputy Director. See 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring prisoners to exhaust only “available” administrative remedies); Ross 

v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1860 (2016) (administrative remedies are “unavailable” when “prison 

administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, 

misrepresentation, or intimidation”). In fact, Plaintiff admits a copy of his grievance was 

returned to him on July 9, 2019, which was almost a month before he appealed to the ADC Deputy 

Director.4

 (Doc. Nos. 21 at 7, 85 at 3-4.) And, he filed two copies of that grievance in the record 

 

4 The informal resolution and grievance are contained on the same form. (Doc. No. 21 at 7-8.) 

The original form is white, which is handed to the designated problem at step one. (Id.) The 

prisoner keeps a yellow and a pink carbon copy, while a blue carbon copy goes to a grievance 

officer. (Id.) Plaintiff says that, on July 1, 2019, he sent the white copy to the designated 

problem solver as his informal resolution (step one). (Doc. Nos. 21 at 7, 85 at 3-5.) When he 

did not receive a timely response, Plaintiff sent the yellow copy to the HSA on July 4, 2019. (Doc. 

Nos. 21 at 8, 85 at 3-5.) On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff got the white copy back from the designated 

problem solver, and he signed it the same day to acknowledge its receipt. (Doc. Nos. 21 at 7, 85 

at 3-5). On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff appealed to the ADC Deputy Director. (Doc. No. 21 at 10-

11.) Although Plaintiff did not have his yellow copy back from the HSA at that time, he admits 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 8 of 12
9 

long before Defendants moved for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 21 at 8, 9.) The possibility 

Plaintiff did not know he was required to include both forms does not excuse his failure to follow 

the clear rules in the ADC’s grievance policy. See Muhammad, 933 F.3d at 1002 (a prisoner’s 

misunderstanding of the ADC grievance procedure did not excuse his procedural default because 

“procedures need not be sufficiently plain as to preclude any reasonable mistake, as long as an 

ordinary prisoner can make sense of what it demands”); Crowley v. Nailor, No. 19-1293, 783 Fed. 

Appx. 637, 637-38 (8th Cir. Nov. 4, 2019) (unpublished opinion) (an ADC prisoner’s “mistaken 

belief” on what form he was required to use for an appeal “did not show that the process was 

unavailable to him”). Thus, I conclude that, on August 13, 2019, the ADC Deputy Director 

properly rejected appeal one for not including the correct forms. 

 Plaintiff then attempted to file a second appeal of TU-19-550. Administrative Directive 

14-16 § IV(G)(6) says that a “written decision or rejection of an appeal at this level [the ADC 

Deputy Director] is the end of the grievance process.” (Doc. No. 48-1 at 12) (emphasis added). 

It does not provide a mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the ADC Deputy Director’s rejection 

of an appeal. Nevertheless, Plaintiff attempted to do so by writing on the bottom of the rejection 

form that he was now sending the ADC Deputy Director a copy of his original grievance and the 

HSA’s acknowledgment form. (Doc. Nos. 21 at 14, 76-1.) On August 26, 2019, the Medical 

Grievance Coordinator5

 returned appeal two to Plaintiff in a letter explaining that the ADC Deputy 

Director’s rejection of appeal one “marked the end of the appeal process for this grievance.” 

 

he had the white copy, and he has not explained what happened to the pink copy he should have 

retained for his records when he started the grievance process. 

5 Plaintiff incorrectly believes Medical Grievance Supervisor Michelle Buterbaugh and Medical 

Grievance Coordinator Jacqueline Buterbaugh are the same person. (Doc. No. 85.) I have 

already explained to him that they not. (Doc. No. 90.) 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 9 of 12
10 

(Doc. Nos. 21 at 16, 77-2.) I conclude her rejection of appeal two was proper and in compliance 

with Administrative Directive 14-16 § IV(G)(6). 

 On August 13, 2019, which was the same day Plaintiff received the ADC Deputy Director’s 

rejection of appeal one, the HSA denied Plaintiff’s grievance on the merits. (Doc. Nos. 21 at 12-

13, 76-1.) On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff attempted to appeal (“appeal three”) the HSA’s decision 

to the ADC Deputy Director, and it was stamped as received on August 26, 2019. On September 

5, 2019, the Medical Grievance Coordinator returned appeal three to Plaintiff with a letter 

reminding him the ADC Deputy Director’s rejection of appeal one “marked the end of the appeal 

process for this grievance.” (Doc. Nos. 21 at 15, 77-2.) 

 Whether the rejection of appeal three was proper is a close issue. Administrative 

Directive 14-16 does not specify what happens when a prisoner receives a belated ruling from the 

HSA (step two) after he has already appealed to the ADC Deputy Director (step three) without the 

HSA’s response. In such circumstances, can a prisoner file a second appeal challenging the late 

decision on the merits? And, more applicable to the case at hand, was the HSA’s belated response 

on the merits a waiver of Plaintiff’s procedural error in failing to send his grievance with the 

appeal, especially when the ADC Deputy Director’s rejection and the HSA’s decision on the merits 

were entered on the same day, August 13, 2019. See Hammett, 681 F.3d at 947 (“the PLRA’s 

exhaustion requirement is satisfied if prison officials decide a procedurally flawed grievance on 

the merits”). Those issues, however, cannot be resolved in this case because Plaintiff filed appeal 

three on August 19, 2019, and it was rejected on September 5, 2019 – both of which occurred after

he commenced this lawsuit on August 14, 2019. As previously explained, a prisoner must 

complete the exhaustion process before commencing a lawsuit. Johnson, 340 F.3d at 627. 

 For these reasons, I conclude Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 10 of 12
11 

in TU-19-550. Plaintiff argues administrative remedies were unavailable to him because ADC 

officials were late in responding at steps one and two. (Doc. Nos. 69, 87.) But, the ADC’s 

grievance policy clearly allows a prisoner to proceed to the next step in such circumstances, and 

Plaintiff attempted to do so. However, he did not attach a copy of his grievance, as he was clearly 

required to do by the ADC’s grievance policy. And, he has not offered any evidence 

demonstrating he was unable to do so. Plaintiff’s subsequent attempts to rectify that error by 

filing appeal two was something that was not permitted by the ADC’s grievance policy. And, his 

attempt to appeal the HSA’s belated ruling on the merits in appeal three was too late, i.e., after he 

commenced this lawsuit. Accordingly, I conclude Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his available 

administrative remedies in TU-19-550. 

C. Conclusion 

 Because Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his available administrative before filing this 

lawsuit, I recommend Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment be granted, and Plaintiff’s 

claims against all remaining Defendants be dismissed without prejudice.6

 See Jones, 549 U.S. at 

211 (“There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted 

claims cannot be brought in court”). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT: 

 

6 Separate Defendants Griffin, McCoy, and Page argue they are also entitled to dismissal because 

Plaintiff did not specifically name them in either TU-19-550 or TU-19-574, as required by Admin. 

Dir. 14-16 § IV(C)(4) and (E)(2). See Townsend, 898 F.3d at 784 (dismissing claims against two 

of the three defendants who were not listed in the grievance); Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136, 1141 

(8th Cir. 2014) (finding improper exhaustion when the “ADC was not asked to evaluate the 

conduct” of one defendant “or the distinct § 1983 claims first asserted” in the lawsuit). In light 

of my conclusion that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his available administrative remedies in 

these grievances prior to filing this lawsuit, there is no need to address that argument at this time. 

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 11 of 12
12 

 1. Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 47, 77) be GRANTED, 

Plaintiff’s claims against all remaining Defendants be DISMISSED without prejudice, and this 

case be CLOSED. 

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

appeal from an Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would 

not be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 2nd day of March 2020. 

______________________________________ 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-00265-JM Document 95 Filed 03/02/20 Page 12 of 12