Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_18-cv-00123/USCOURTS-ared-2_18-cv-00123-1/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 

DELTA DIVISION 

FLOYD JOHNSON PLAINTIFF 

ADC #077727 

v. No: 2:18-cv-00123 BSM-PSH 

MICHAEL MELLOW, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS

 The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge 

Brian S. Miller. 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 Floyd Johnson, an inmate at the East Arkansas Regional Unit 

(EARU) of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed this pro se civil

rights complaint against Michael Mellow, Jasmine Troup, Cleveland Jones, David 

Case 2:18-cv-00123-BSM Document 108 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 8
2

Knott, Shaquille Beal, Benjamin Woodard, Ivy Craig, and Alicia Williams.1 Doc. 

Nos. 18 & 21. Johnson alleges that defendants failed to protect him from other 

inmates who threw AA batteries at him in the shower. Id.

 The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and 

a statement of facts claiming that Johnson had not exhausted his claims against them 

before he filed this lawsuit (Doc. Nos. 92-94). Johnson responded (Doc. No. 96) to 

the motion, the defendants filed a Reply (Doc. No. 97), and Johnson filed an 

additional response (Doc. No. 98). For the reasons described herein, the undersigned 

recommends that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. 

II. Legal Standard

 Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is 

proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute 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(a); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment, the court must view the evidence 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

 1

 Other defendants were previously dismissed from this lawsuit. See Doc. Nos. 

23, 82 & 88. 

Case 2:18-cv-00123-BSM Document 108 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 8
3

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). An assertion that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely disputed must 

be supported by materials in the record such as “depositions, documents, 

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including 

those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or 

other materials . . .”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also show that a fact 

is disputed or undisputed by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the 

absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce 

admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). 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 defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because 

Johnson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them before he 

Case 2:18-cv-00123-BSM Document 108 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 8
4

filed this lawsuit. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the ADC’s 

grievance policy (Doc. No. 93-1) and a declaration by Terri Brown, the ADC’s 

Grievance Supervisor (Doc. No. 93-2). 

 The 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. “[T]he 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. 516, 532 (2002). The PLRA does 

not 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 will depend on the specifics of that particular prison’s 

grievance policy. See id.

 Pursuant to the ADC’s grievance policy (AD 14-16), inmates are provided 

Unit Level Grievance Forms as part of the Inmate Grievance Procedure. Doc. No. 

93-1 at 4. To resolve a problem, an inmate must first seek informal resolution by 

submitting a Step One Unit Level Grievance Form (“Step One”) within 15 days after 

the occurrence of the incident. Id. at 5. Inmates are to “specifically name each 

Case 2:18-cv-00123-BSM Document 108 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 8
5

individual involved for a proper investigation and response to be completed by the 

ADC.” Id. at 4. An inmate must be “specific as to the substance of the issue or 

complaint to include the date, place, personnel involved or witnesses, and how the 

policy or incident affected the inmate submitting the form.” Id. at 5-6. A problem 

solver investigates the complaint and provides a written response at the bottom of 

the form. Id. This process should not take more than three working days. Id. at 6-

7. If the inmate is not satisfied with the resolution, he may then complete Step Two 

of the grievance procedure and submit the form as a formal grievance (“Step Two”). 

Id. at 8. The inmate may also proceed to Step Two if he does not receive a response 

from the problem solver within three working days; in that case, the inmate has an 

additional three working days to proceed to Step Two. Id. at 7-8. If the inmate 

receives no response to his Step Two grievance, or if the inmate is not satisfied with 

the response, the inmate can appeal to the appropriate Chief 

Deputy/Deputy/Assistant Director. Id. at 10-11. A written decision or rejection of 

an appeal is the end of the grievance process. Id. at 12. According to the ADC’s 

grievance policy, the entire grievance procedure should be completed within 76 

working days absent an extension or unforeseen circumstances. Id. at 13. The 

grievance policy specifically states that inmates must exhaust administrative 

remedies at all levels of the procedure before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. Id.

at 17. 

Case 2:18-cv-00123-BSM Document 108 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 8
6

 According to her declaration, Inmate Grievance Supervisor Brown reviewed 

Johnson’s non-medical grievance files from September 2015 through the filing of 

this lawsuit in September 2018 and found no grievance filed by Johnson pertaining 

to the allegations in his complaint. Doc. No. 93-2 at 2-3. In his response, Johnson 

concedes that he did not exhaust the ADC’s administrative remedies. Doc. No. 96 

at 1. However, he alleges that he was prevented from exhausting because ADC 

employees destroyed his grievances. Id. The legibility of his response makes it 

difficult to discern the exact nature of this argument.2 However, assuming that 

Johnson is arguing that the administrative remedies were unavailable to him, this 

court finds that Johnson has not provided sufficient proof to overcome the 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

 The unavailability of an administrative remedy can waive the exhaustion 

requirement. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738–39 (2001). However, 

Johnson provides no proof that he attempted to file a grievance that was 

subsequently destroyed by ADC officials.3

 The defendants provided Brown’s 

 2 The Court has repeatedly instructed Johnson to obtain typing services and 

ordered Johnson to stop filing handwritten pleadings. See Doc. Nos. 54 & 69. The 

defendants have made clear that typewriting assistance is available to inmates at the 

EARU. See Doc. No. 66. 

3

 If Johnson had submitted a Unit Level Grievance Form, he would have received 

either the yellow or pink copy of the form according to ADC grievance policy. See Doc. 

No. 93-1 at 6. As explained earlier, the ADC grievance procedure requires an inmate to 

first seek informal resolution by submitting a Step One Unit Level Grievance Form 

within 15 days after the occurrence of the incident. Doc. No. 93-1 at 5. A problem 

Case 2:18-cv-00123-BSM Document 108 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 8
7

declaration stating that there is no record of any grievance submitted by Johnson. A 

plaintiff’s unsupported statement is insufficient to defeat a properly supported 

motion for summary judgment. See Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 620 F.3d 902, 

909 (quoting Flentje v. First Nat'l Bank of Wynne, 340 Ark. 563, 569 (2000) (“When 

the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the 

respondent must discard the shielding cloak of formal allegations 

and meet proof with proof by showing a genuine issue as to a material fact.”)). 

Because Johnson has not provided any proof to controvert the defendants’ proof that 

he did not complete his administrative remedies with respect to his complaint 

allegations, the undersigned finds that his claims against the defendants are not 

exhausted and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

IV. Conclusion

 The defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 92) should be 

granted, and Johnson’s claims against all defendants should be dismissed without 

prejudice.

solver investigates the complaint and provides a written response at the bottom of the 

form. Id. If the inmate is not satisfied with the resolution, he may then complete Step 

Two of the grievance procedure and submit the form as a formal grievance. Id. at 8. The 

inmate may also proceed to Step Two if he does not receive a response from the problem 

solver within three working days; in that case, the inmate has a total of six working days 

to proceed to Step Two. Id. at 7-8. 

Case 2:18-cv-00123-BSM Document 108 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 8
8

 DATED this 27th day of March, 2020. 

 

 ___________________________________

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:18-cv-00123-BSM Document 108 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 8