Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00119/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00119-4/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

ANTHONY L. PATTON PLAINTIFF 

v. No: 4:19-cv-00119 DPM-PSH 

RICHARD MURPHY DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation has been sent to 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 this Recommendation. By not objecting, you 

may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

DISPOSITION 

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff Anthony Patton filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

on February 14, 2019, while incarcerated at the Arkansas Department of 

Case 4:19-cv-00119-DPM Document 36 Filed 02/03/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

Correction’s North Central Unit.1 Doc. No. 1. Patton alleged that Officer Richard 

Murphy used excessive force on him on July 19, 2018, while he was incarcerated at 

the Pulaski County Detention Facility (“PCDF”). Id.

Murphy filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and a 

statement of facts claiming that Patton had not exhausted his claims against Murphy 

before he filed this lawsuit. Doc. Nos. 30-32. Despite the Court’s order notifying 

Patton of his opportunity to file a response and statement of disputed facts, Patton 

did not do so. Doc. No. 33. Because Patton failed to controvert the facts set forth 

in defendant’s statement of undisputed facts, Doc. No. 32, those facts are deemed 

admitted. See Local Rule 56.1(c). Murphy’s statement of facts, and the other 

pleadings and exhibits in the record, establish that the material facts are not in dispute 

and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

II. Legal Standard 

Under Rule 56 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 or declarations, 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; Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). 

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence 

                                                             1

 Patton has since been released. See Doc. No. 21. 

Case 4:19-cv-00119-DPM Document 36 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

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 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 v. Bock, 549 

U.S. at 211. The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about 

prison life whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and 

whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 

Case 4:19-cv-00119-DPM Document 36 Filed 02/03/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

516, 532 (2002). The PLRA does not, however, prescribe the manner in which 

exhaustion occurs. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 218. It merely requires 

compliance with prison grievance procedures to properly exhaust. See id. Thus, the 

question as to whether an inmate has properly exhausted administrative remedies 

depends on the grievance policy of the particular prison where the alleged events 

occurred. See id. 

Murphy argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because Patton failed 

to exhaust his administrative remedies before he filed this lawsuit. See Doc. No. 31. 

In support of his motion for summary judgment, Murphy submitted an affidavit by 

Sergeant Lesa Warner (Doc. No. 32-1); Patton’s Arrest and Booking Sheet (Doc. 

No. 32-2); grievances and requests filed by Patton during his incarceration at PCDF 

(Doc. No. 32-3); and a copy of the PCDF’s grievance policy (Doc. No. 32-4). 

The PCDF has a grievance procedure in place to permit inmates to file 

grievances/appeals and to assure them of written responses from facility officials in 

a timely and orderly manner without fear of reprisal or prejudice. Doc. No. 32-4 at 

1. Any inmate may invoke the grievance procedures regardless of their security or 

job classification, disciplinary status, or administrative or legislative decisions 

affecting the inmate. Id. An inmate may invoke the grievance procedure by 

submitting a written complaint regarding one of the following: 

a. Actions taken by staff or other inmates that have the effect 

of depriving the inmate of a right, service, or privilege. 

Case 4:19-cv-00119-DPM Document 36 Filed 02/03/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

b. Allegations of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment by staff or 

other inmates. 

c. Any other matter the inmate believes to be illegal, a 

violation of department rules and regulations, or 

unconstitutional treatment or condition. 

Id. at 1-2. Grievances must be filed with the Grievance Officer or designee within 

15 days after the occurrence in issue. Id. at 4. If, after being responded to by the 

Grievance Officer or designee, the inmate is not satisfied, he or she may appeal 

within ten (10) working days. Id. at 7. The entire grievance process must be 

completed within 30 working days unless a valid extension has been agreed upon, 

or unforeseen circumstances are documented to show that causes outside the control 

of the parties caused the process to take longer. Id. at 8. 

In support of his motion, Murphy submitted the affidavit of Sgt. Lesa Warner 

and a record of the grievances and requests Patton filed while he was incarcerated at 

PCDF. 2 See Doc. Nos. 32-1 and 32-3. During that time, Murphy submitted one 

sick call request and five grievances,3

 all of which concerned matters that occurred 

before the alleged May 19, 2018 incident. Doc. No. 32-3. Patton did not complain 

of excessive force in any of these documents, and the PCDF has no record that Patton 

                                                            

2 Patton was jailed at the PCDF from March 1, 2018, until September 7, 2018. 

Doc. No. 21-2 (booking sheet). 3

 Murphy also submitted a grievance and sick call request dated January 2018, 

before Patton was booked, presumably from a prior incarceration. See Doc. No. 32-3 at 

1-3. 

Case 4:19-cv-00119-DPM Document 36 Filed 02/03/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

filed a grievance related to the May 19, 2018 incident complained of in the 

complaint. Doc. Nos. 32-3 and 32-1 at 1. Patton has not refuted the facts set out in 

the Warner affidavit or the submitted grievance documents. The Court therefore 

finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and Patton did not exhaust his 

administrative remedies before he filed this lawsuit as a matter of law. Murphy is 

therefore entitled to summary judgment, and Patton’s claims should be dismissed 

without prejudice. 

IV. Conclusion 

Patton did not exhaust available administrative remedies before initiating this 

lawsuit. Accordingly, Murphy’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30) 

should be granted, and Patton’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice. 

 DATED this 3rd day February, 2020. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:19-cv-00119-DPM Document 36 Filed 02/03/20 Page 6 of 6