Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_18-cv-00162/USCOURTS-ared-2_18-cv-00162-1/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 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

JASON L. HOUSTON, PLAINTIFF 

REG. #31420-045 

2:18CV00162-KGB-JTK 

PRUITT, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

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

Kristine G. Baker. 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 before the District Judge (if such a 

hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 2:18-cv-00162-KGB Document 28 Filed 07/22/19 Page 1 of 6
2 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the 

District Judge in the form 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 hearing before 

the District Judge. 

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. 

Mail your objections and AStatement 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 

Plaintiff Jason Houston is a federal inmate incarcerated at the Forrest City Medium Federal 

Correctional Institution (FCI) who filed this federal civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This Court recommended dismissal of Defendants 

Pruitt and Smith, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, on March 6, 2019 

(Doc. No. 11) 

 This matter is before the Court on remaining Defendant Hollister’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, Brief in Support, and Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 24-26). Plaintiff did not respond, 

and by Order dated July 3, 2019, this Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the 

Motion within fifteen days of the date of the Order would result in either all the facts set forth in 

the Motion being deemed admitted by him, or dismissal of the action, without prejudice, for failure 

to prosecute (Doc. No. 27). As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion. 

Case 2:18-cv-00162-KGB Document 28 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 6
3 

II. Complaint 

 Plaintiff alleged Defendant Hollister made sexual remarks to him and another inmate while 

they prepared to shower. 

III. Summary Judgment 

Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997). AThe moving party bears 

the initial burden of identifying >those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes 

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.=@ Webb v. Lawrence County, 144 

F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (other 

citations omitted)). AOnce the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party cannot 

simply rest on mere denials or allegations in the pleadings; rather, the non-movant >must set forth 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.=@ Id. at 1135. Although the facts are 

viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, Ain order to defeat a motion for summary 

judgment, the non-movant cannot simply create a factual dispute; rather, there must be a genuine 

dispute over those facts that could actually affect the outcome of the lawsuit.@ Id. 

In addition, A[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement (of undisputed material facts) 

filed by the moving party...shall be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement filed by 

the non-moving party....@ Local Rule 56.1, Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

and Western Districts of Arkansas. Failure to properly support or address the moving party=s 

assertion of fact can result in the fact considered as undisputed for purposes of the motion. 

Case 2:18-cv-00162-KGB Document 28 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 6
4 

FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e)(2). 

Defendant asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s allegations against him because he failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 

U.S.C. ' 1997e. According to Declaration of Bridgette Bass, FCI-Forrest City Associate Warden 

Secretary, the three-step federal administrative remedy process is instituted by the filing of an 

informal resolution with staff, and then a formal resolution to the Warden through a BP-9 form at 

the Unit level. (Doc. No. 26-1, p. 3) Two appeals from that level are provided, to the Regional 

Director through a BP-10 form, and then to the General Counsel for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), 

via a BP-11 form (Id.) The BOP maintains a record of all administrative remedy forms submitted 

by inmates in the SENTRY computer-based system. (Id.) However, the BOP does not retain copies 

of rejected administrative remedy requests or appeals, and according to the BOP records, Plaintiff 

has filed no administrative remedy requests or appeals during his incarceration. (Id., p. 4) Although 

Plaintiff did attach a copy of an Administrative Remedy Response to his Complaint, it was filed 

by and related to another inmate, Patrick Martin. (Id., p. 5) 

 According to the PLRA, 

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under 

section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 

' 1983), or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, 

prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies 

as are available are exhausted. 

42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a). The courts have interpreted this provision as a mandatory requirement that 

administrative remedies be exhausted prior to the filing of a lawsuit. Exhaustion of remedies 

includes filing a grievance and appealing such grievance through all appropriate levels. In this 

case, as mentioned above, the final level is the General Counsel for the Central Office of the 

Case 2:18-cv-00162-KGB Document 28 Filed 07/22/19 Page 4 of 6
5 

Bureau of Prisons, pursuant to a BPB11 form. In Booth v. Churner, the United States Supreme 

Court held that in enacting the PLRA, ACongress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, 

regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures.@ 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). In 

addition, in Chelette v. Harris, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Athe statute=s 

requirements are clear: If administrative remedies are available, the prisoner must exhaust them. 

Chelette failed to do so, and so his complaint must be dismissed, for >we are not free to engraft 

upon the statute an exception that Congress did not place there.=@ 229 F.2d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000). 

In Chelette, the plaintiff inmate did not completely exhaust his administrative remedies because 

the warden told him he would take care of the matter. The Court held that ASection 1997(e)(a) says 

nothing about a prisoner=s subjective beliefs, logical or otherwise, about the administrative 

remedies that might be available to him.@ Id. Therefore, the Court concluded that the statute clearly 

requires exhaustion. In Johnson v. Jones, the Court held that Aunder the plain language of section 

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

exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory.@ 340 F.3d 624, 627 

(8th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). Finally, in Jones v. Bock, the Supreme Court held that while 

the PLRA itself does not require that all defendants be specifically named in an administrative 

grievance, Ait is the prison=s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper 

exhaustion.@ 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). 

Absent a Response from the Plaintiff, the Court deems the Defendant’s stated facts as 

admitted. Therefore, based on the Declaration of Bridgette Bass that Plaintiff did not file a 

grievance concerning his allegation against Defendant Hollister, the Court finds that his Complaint 

should be dismissed without prejudice. 

Case 2:18-cv-00162-KGB Document 28 Filed 07/22/19 Page 5 of 6
6 

IV. Conclusion 

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED, that Defendant Hollister’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. No. 24) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint against him be DISMISSED 

without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 2019. 

_________________________________ 

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:18-cv-00162-KGB Document 28 Filed 07/22/19 Page 6 of 6