Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_18-cv-00188/USCOURTS-ared-3_18-cv-00188-2/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 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

DEWAYNE MICHAEL DRIVER, PLAINTIFF 

ADC #170876 

V. CASE NO. 3:18-CV-188 KGB-BD 

MIKE ALLEN, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections 

This Recommended Disposition (Recommendation) has been sent to Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. Any party to this suit may file written objections with the Clerk of 

Court. 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 Dewayne Michael Driver, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate 

formerly detained at the Crittenden County Detention Facility (Detention Center), filed 

this civil lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Driver alleges 

that Detention Center staff members were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 

needs. (Docket entry #2) 

Case 3:18-cv-00188-KGB Document 18 Filed 07/31/19 Page 1 of 3
Defendants Allen, Coleman, and Childress moved for summary judgment on Mr. 

Driver’s claims against them, arguing that he failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies before filing this lawsuit.1

 (#14) Mr. Driver did not respond to the Defendants’ 

motion; and the time for responding to the motion has passed. (#17) The motion is ripe 

for review. 

B. Exhaustion 

The Court must dismiss any claim that was not fully exhausted before the date the 

complaint was filed. See 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”). 

There are exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. For example, prisoners can be 

excused from exhausting administrative remedies when correction officials have 

prevented them from using grievance procedures or when officials have themselves failed 

to comply with administrative procedures. Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 

2001); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 697-98 (8th Cir. 2001). But, the exceptions to the 

exhaustion requirement are few. An inmate’s subjective belief about the effectiveness of 

 

1

 The Court previously recommended that Mr. Driver’s claims against the Doe 

Defendants be dismissed based on his failure to timely identify and serve those 

Defendants. (#10) That Recommendation remains pending. 

Case 3:18-cv-00188-KGB Document 18 Filed 07/31/19 Page 2 of 3
the grievance process does not excuse a failure to exhaust; nor does confusion about the 

requirements for exhaustion. Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000). 

In support of their motion, Defendants attach the affidavit of Defendant Coleman, 

jail administrator for the Detention Center. (#15-1) Defendant Coleman states that Mr. 

Driver was held at the Detention Center from February 1, 2018, through February 3, 

2018, and again from July 12, 2018, through August 20, 2018. (Id. at p.1) Defendant 

Coleman testifies that there is no record of Mr. Driver having filed a grievance regarding 

any issue during his 2018 detentions. (Id.) 

Mr. Driver has not come forward with any evidence contradicting Defendant 

Coleman’s testimony. Based on this record, there is no genuine dispute about the lack of 

exhaustion. 

III. Conclusion 

 The Court recommends that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#14) 

be GRANTED. Mr. Driver’s claims should be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on 

his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

 DATED, this 31st day of July, 2019. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:18-cv-00188-KGB Document 18 Filed 07/31/19 Page 3 of 3