Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06116/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06116-0/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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

BRANDON M. JONES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:23-cv-06116-SOH-MEF

REBEKAH PETERSON

(Correctional Officer, Omega Unit, ACC);

BENJAMIN MARTIN

(Lieutenant, Omega Unit, ACC); 

JASON GARDNER (LPN, Wellpath);

LPN KELLY AUNSPAUGH

(Health Service Administrator, Wellpath) DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, 

referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. 

Currently before the Court is Defendant Aunspaugh’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue 

of Exhaustion. (ECF No. 24). Also before the Court is the issue Plaintiff’s failure to provide a 

valid service address for Defendant Gardner. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on November 14, 2023. 

(ECF No. 2). It was transferred to this District on November 15, 2023. (ECF No. 7). On 

November 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended 

Complaint to correct deficiencies in his initial Complaint. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff submitted an 

Amended Complaint on December 20, 2023. (ECF No. 14). On December 21, 2023, the Court 

entered a second Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to correct continuing 

Case 6:23-cv-06116-SOH-MEF Document 33 Filed 11/07/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

deficiencies. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff submitted his Second Amended Complaint on January 5, 

2024. (ECF No. 17).

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated 

while he was incarcerated in the Arkansas Community Correction (“ACC’) Omega Unit on 

November 20, 2022. (ECF No. 17 at 4). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew Plaintiff had a 

doctor’s order for a lower bunk because he had a bag and line running from his kidney out of his 

back. (Id.). Despite this order, they forced him to use a top bunk. (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff fell out 

of the top bunk, ripping the port and line out of his kidney and back, and leaving him hanging 

suspended from the top bunk. (Id. at 5). This resulted in his kidney becoming infected, and 

ultimately requiring that it be removed. (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants in their 

individual capacity for this claim. (ECF No. 7). 

For his second claim, Plaintiff refers to his allegations in Claim One, and states that he was 

placed in “hazardous living conditions with serious physical medical needs in violation of a doctors 

orders.” (ECF No. 17 at 6). He states that he exhausted his administrative remedies in grievances 

OM-23-00028 and OM-23-00027. He names all Defendants for this claim and proceeds against 

them in their individual capacity. (Id. at 6-7). 

For his third claim, Plaintiff alleges Defendants caused him future injury by “refusing to 

treat or get plaintiff treated.” (ECF No. 17 at 7-8). He alleges Defendant Gardner ordered Nurse 

Young to “push the port hose back in, give him two Tylenol, and send him back to the barracks.” 

(Id.). Plaintiff alleges he was denied medical care for weeks and suffered “excruciating pain.” 

(Id.). Defendants Martin and Peterson continued to ignore the doctor’s order for a lower bunk. 

(Id.). Plaintiff informed Defendant Aunspaugh that his bag was not draining properly, his urine 

contained blood, and the bag leaked. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges she “turned a blind eye” to his 

Case 6:23-cv-06116-SOH-MEF Document 33 Filed 11/07/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

complaints. (Id.). Plaintiff points to grievance OM-23-00027 where Defendant Aunspaugh stated 

this his complaints were “not a medical issue.” (Id.). Plaintiff was then transferred to the Arkansas 

Division of Correction (“ADC”), where it was determined that his kidney was infected. (Id.). 

Plaintiff was sent to the hospital, where the kidney had to be removed. (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds 

against Defendants in their individual capacity for this claim. (Id. at 8). 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive, and other damages, including several injunctions. 

(ECF No. 17 at 9). 

To date, efforts to obtain service upon Defendant Gardner have been unsuccessful. On 

May 21, 2024, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to provide additional information to 

identify and serve Defendant Gardner. (ECF No. 32). The deadline for Plaintiff to do so was June 

11, 2024. (Id.). The Order advised Plaintiff that failure to provide the information would result in 

Defendant Gardner being dismissed as a party in this case. (Id.). This Order was not returned as 

undeliverable. Plaintiff did not submit a response. 

Defendant Aunspaugh filed her Motion for Summary Judgement on the Issue of 

Exhaustion on April 19, 2024. (ECF No. 24). On April 22, 2024, the Court entered an Order 

directing Plaintiff to submit a Summary Judgment Response. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff filed two

Responses on April 25 and May 6, 2024. (ECF Nos. 29, 30). Defendant Aunspaugh did not file 

a Reply. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences 

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

Case 6:23-cv-06116-SOH-MEF Document 33 Filed 11/07/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

“Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with 

the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a 

genuine issue of material fact exists.” National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 

F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

The non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical 

doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “They must show there is sufficient 

evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor.” National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “A case founded on speculation or suspicion is 

insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 

621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is 

blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not 

adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott 

v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Failure to Exhaust

Defendant Aunspaugh argues Plaintiff filed five grievances during the applicable period: 

Grievances #OM-22-00514, #OM-23-00024, #OM-23-00027, #OM-23-00028 and #OM-23-

00033. (ECF No. 24 at 1). She argues he did not exhaust any of the five grievances. (Id. at 2). 

At all times relevant to this case, Plaintiff is identified as an inmate of the Arkansas Division of 

Correction. (ECF No. 26 at 2). Defendant Aunspaugh states, “[t]he grievance process applicable 

to this matter is set forth at Department of Corrections, Administrative Directive 2019-34.” (Id. at

2). Review of that policy indicates it is for the Arkansas Division of Correction. (ECF No. 26-2). 

The list of covered Units for the policy does not include the ACC Omega Center. (Id. at 27). 

Case 6:23-cv-06116-SOH-MEF Document 33 Filed 11/07/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
5

Plaintiff argues that the grievance process for inmates in Arkansas Community Correction 

(“ACC”) is not the same as those for inmates housed in the Arkansas Division of Correction 

(“ADC”). (ECF No. 30). He further argues that he appealed OM-22-00514 to the Deputy Director, 

and therefore, exhausted the administrative process for that grievance at a minimum. (Id. at 2). 

He also argues that documents are missing from Defendant’s exhibits. (Id.). Plaintiff provides a 

copy of a final response from the Deputy Director of Arkansas Community Correction for OM22-00514. (Id. at 9). This document clearly states: “**Note: Deputy Director’s Response is the 

final appeal available.**” (Id.) (emphasis in original). 

Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, material questions of fact remain as to whether 

Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies for this claim. Defendant Aunspaugh has not met 

her burden of proof, and summary judgment is not appropriate for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies.

B. Failure to Obtain Service Upon Defendant Gardner

This leaves the question of service to Defendant Gardner. It is the responsibility of the 

Plaintiff to provide the Court with an address for proper service on the Defendants. See Lee v.

Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). The Court has not been able to serve Defendant 

Gardner with the information provided thus far. In the Order directing Plaintiff to provide 

additional service information, he was advised that failure to do so would result in the dismissal 

of Defendant Gardner as a party in this case. (ECF No. 32). Defendant Gardner should be 

terminated as a party in this case because Plaintiff has failed to provide a valid address for service

of process. 

Case 6:23-cv-06116-SOH-MEF Document 33 Filed 11/07/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
6 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Defendant Gardner be terminated as a Defendant in 

this case. It is further recommended that Defendant Aunspaugh’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

on the Issue of Exhaustion (ECF No. 24) be DENIED. 

Referral Status: This case should remain referred for all matters not recommended for 

dismissal in this Report and Recommendation. 

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court.

DATED this 7th day of November 2024. 

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:23-cv-06116-SOH-MEF Document 33 Filed 11/07/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>