Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00234/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00234-1/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 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

BRAD CHAMBERS, 

#217212 PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 5:19-CV-234-JM-BD 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections 

This Recommendation has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. Any party may 

file objections. To be considered, objections must be filed within 14 days of filing of the 

Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal 

basis for the objection. 

Parties who do not object may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. And, if 

no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation without 

independently reviewing the record. 

II. Background

Plaintiff Brad Chambers is currently held at the Pulaski County Detention Facility. 

He filed this § 1983 lawsuit claiming that on November 5, 2018, while incarcerated at the 

Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), he was attacked by a 

fellow inmate and that Defendants Ford and West violated his constitutional rights by 

failing to protect him. (#2) 

Case 5:19-cv-00234-JM Document 27 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 6
2 

Defendants have moved for summary judgment, contending that Mr. Chambers 

failed to fully exhaust the grievance process before filing his complaint in this lawsuit. 

(#20) Mr. Chambers has responded to the motion. (#24) 

III. Exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss any claim raised 

that was not fully exhausted prior to filing a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (declaring, “[n]o 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) (explaining the proper 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) (holding an inmate must exhaust all available 

administrative remedies before filing suit, and “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at 

the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”). 

There is no federally mandated grievance process. Instead, each prison or jail is 

free to establish its own administrative procedure for filing grievances. An inmate’s 

subjective beliefs regarding exhaustion are irrelevant in determining whether 

administrative procedures are available. Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 

2000). 

 

Case 5:19-cv-00234-JM Document 27 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 6
3

IV. Discussion

During all times relevant to this lawsuit, Administrative Directive (AD) 14-16 was 

in effect. (#21-1) Under AD 14-16, inmates must fully exhaust their administrative 

remedies as to all defendants before filing a § 1983 lawsuit. (Id. at 17-18) 

According to the testimony of Terri Brown, the ADC inmate grievance supervisor, 

she reviewed the nonmedical grievances Mr. Chambers filed during the time period 

relevant to his claims and found that he filed four such grievances: (TU 18-00891, TU 

18-00983, TU 18-00931, TU 18-00933). (#21-7) 

A. Grievance TU 18-00891 

In grievance TU 18-00891, Mr. Chambers complained that after he was attacked 

by inmate Conkey on November 4, 2018, Defendant West allowed inmate Conkey into 

barracks 3 the next day, where he again attacked Mr. Chambers. (#21-3, p.1) After the 

second attack, Defendant Ford placed Mr. Chambers in restrictive housing because Mr. 

Chambers complained that he no longer felt safe in barracks 3. (#21-3, p.1) Mr. 

Chambers submitted step-two of grievance TU 18-00891 on November 19, 2018. (#21-3, 

p.1) The Warden responded on December 20, 2018, finding that the grievance had no 

merit. (#21-3, p.2) Mr. Chambers did not appeal the warden’s response, as required to 

fully exhaust a grievance.1

 (#21-7, p.3) 

 

1

 Pursuant to AD 14-16, “[a]fter receiving a response from the Warden. . . if the inmate is 

not satisfied, he or she may appeal within five (5) working days. . . .” (21-1, p.11) 

Case 5:19-cv-00234-JM Document 27 Filed 12/05/19 Page 3 of 6
4 

Mr. Chambers does not dispute the fact that he did not appeal the Warden’s 

decision. Instead, he argues that he did not receive either an acknowledgment or a 

rejection of the unit-level grievance within five business days, as the ADC policy 

requires; nor did he receive a response from the Warden within 20 days, as required by 

ADC policy. (#2, p.10) 

Under the provisions of AD 14-16, if an inmate does not receive a response to his 

unit-level grievance, the inmate may move to the next level of the process and appeal to 

the ADC Director. (#21-1, p.10) To fully exhaust this grievance, Mr. Chambers should 

have appealed to the Director after 20 days passed without an acknowledgement, 

rejection, or response. 

Mr. Chambers argues that, without an acknowledgement, rejection, or response 

from the Warden, he lacked the proper forms required to appeal to the Director. (#24, 

#25) In response to this argument, however, Ms. Brown explains that Mr. Chambers was 

required, pursuant to AD 14-16, to keep the yellow and pink copies of his unit-level 

grievance form so that he would have a form to submit in an appeal. (#21-1, pp.8, 19; 

#26-1) Mr. Chambers retained the yellow and pink copies of his grievance and could 

have used either of the retained copies to timely appeal. Because Mr. Chambers did not 

appeal to the Director, he did not fully exhaust grievance TU 18-00891. 

B. Grievance TU 18-00893 

Mr. Chambers submitted step-two of grievance TU 18-00893 on November 14, 

2018. In that grievance, he complains that he was attacked by the same inmate on 

Case 5:19-cv-00234-JM Document 27 Filed 12/05/19 Page 4 of 6
5

November 4 and 5 of 2018. (#21-4) The ADC determined this grievance to be duplicative 

of TU-18-00891, even though, inexplicably, Mr. Chambers filed grievance TU 18-00893 

before he filed grievance TU-18-00891. (#21-4, p.2) Mr. Chambers did not appeal the 

decision that the grievance was duplicative. (#21-4, p.2; #21-7) Accordingly, he did not 

fully exhaust grievance TU 18-00893. 

C. Grievance TU 18-00931 

Mr. Chambers submitted step-two of grievance TU 18-00931 on November 28, 

2018. In that grievance he complains that some of his personal property was missing after 

he was released from restrictive housing. (#21-5, p.1) Grievance TU 18-00931 does not 

concern the claims set out in this lawsuit. Furthermore, Mr. Chambers signed a waiver as 

to grievance TU 18-00931, declaring the matter was resolved. (#21-5) Even if grievance 

TU 18-00931 were relevant, it was not fully exhausted. 

D. Grievance TU 18-00933 

Mr. Chambers submitted step-two of grievance TU 18-00933 on November 26, 

2018. In that grievance, he complains that he received a disciplinary for refusing to be 

housed with an inmate on his enemy alert list. (#21-6, p.1) The Warden responded that 

Mr. Chambers was not released at the same time as the inmate on his enemy alert list; 

that there had not been problems between the inmates since they were placed in general 

population; and that he considered the matter resolved. (#21-6, p.2) Mr. Chambers did 

not appeal the Warden’s decision. (#21-6, p.2; #21-7) Accordingly, Mr. Chambers did 

not fully exhaust grievance TU 18-00933. 

Case 5:19-cv-00234-JM Document 27 Filed 12/05/19 Page 5 of 6
6 

V. Conclusion

The Court recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the 

issue of exhaustion (#20) be GRANTED. Claims against Defendants Ford and West 

should be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; 

and this lawsuit should be DISMISSED, without prejudice. 

 DATED this 5th day of December, 2019. 

___________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:19-cv-00234-JM Document 27 Filed 12/05/19 Page 6 of 6