Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_19-cv-00023/USCOURTS-ared-1_19-cv-00023-1/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 

BATESVILLE DIVISION 

FREDDIE LEE EZEKIEL PLAINTIFF 

ADC #127401 

v. No: 1:19-cv-00023 JM-PSH 

JEREMY ALMAN, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge 

James M. Moody Jr. 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 Freddie Lee Ezekiel, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of 

Correction’s (ADC) Tucker Unit, filed this pro se civil rights complaint against 

Sergeant Jeremy Alman and Corporal Delgado (the “ADC Defendants”) as well as 

nurse Michelle A. Hussung. Doc. No. 2. Ezekiel subsequently filed an amended 

Case 1:19-cv-00023-JM Document 50 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 7
2 

complaint alleging that Alman used excessive force when he handcuffed Ezekiel on 

November 2, 2018, and that Delgado refused to provide him with a diet meal tray on 

the same day while Ezekiel was in isolation at the North Central Unit. Id. at 4-5. 

Ezekiel also alleged that Hussung refused to provide him with medical treatment 

after he was handcuffed. Id. at 5. Ezekiel’s claims against defendants Alman and 

Delgado were previously dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies. See Doc. Nos. 39 & 42. 

 Defendant Hussung filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, 

and a statement of facts claiming that Ezekiel did not exhaust his claims against her 

before he filed this lawsuit (Doc. Nos. 43-45). Despite the Court’s order notifying 

Ezekiel of his opportunity to file a response and statement of disputed facts, Ezekiel 

did not do so. Doc. No. 48. Because Ezekiel failed to controvert the facts set forth 

in defendant’s statements of undisputed facts, Doc. No. 45, those facts are deemed 

admitted. See Local Rule 56.1(c). The defendant’s statement of facts, and the other 

pleadings and exhibits in the record, establish that the material facts are not in dispute 

and that defendant Hussung is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

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.

Case 1:19-cv-00023-JM Document 50 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 7
3 

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 

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 

Case 1:19-cv-00023-JM Document 50 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 7
4 

summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th 

Cir. 2010). 

III. Analysis 

 Hussung argues that she is entitled to summary judgment because Ezekiel 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to her before he filed this 

lawsuit. In support of her motion, Hussung relies on documents submitted by 

defendants Alman and Delgado: the ADC’s grievance policy (Doc. No. 13-1); a 

declaration by Terri Grigsby, the ADC’s Grievance Supervisor (Doc. No. 13-2); a 

declaration by Shelly Byers, the ADC’s Assistant Medical Services Administrator 

(Doc. No. 13-3); and a copy of Ezekiel’s inmate grievance record (Doc. No. 13-4). 

See Doc. No. 43. Hussung also relies on the findings previously made by this Court 

in its Proposed Findings and Partial Recommendation entered on August 14, 2019 

(Doc. No. 39) (the “Recommendation”). 

 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. The 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 

Case 1:19-cv-00023-JM Document 50 Filed 01/28/20 Page 4 of 7
5 

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. 

13-1 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 

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 

Case 1:19-cv-00023-JM Document 50 Filed 01/28/20 Page 5 of 7
6 

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. 

 In the Recommendation, the undersigned reviewed the evidence submitted by 

defendants Alman, Delgado, and Ezekiel, and found that Ezekiel had provided no 

proof that he filed a grievance between November 2, 2018 (the date of the incident 

in question) and March 27, 2019 (the date he filed this lawsuit). Doc. No. 39 at 6. 

The Court’s Recommendation was subsequently adopted. Doc. No. 42. Shelly 

Byers, the ADC’s Assistant Medical Services Administrator, submitted a declaration 

stating that she reviewed Ezekiel’s medical grievance history for the relevant time 

period and did not find a single medical grievance submitted by Ezekiel. Doc. No. 

13-3 at 3. Ezekiel’s inmate grievance record also identifies no grievances submitted 

by him. Doc. No. 13-4. In response to that evidence, Ezekiel came forward with no 

Case 1:19-cv-00023-JM Document 50 Filed 01/28/20 Page 6 of 7
7 

proof that he had exhausted a grievance related to the issues in his complaint. See 

Doc. No. 39 at 5-6. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Ezekiel filed or exhausted 

any grievance regarding his allegation that Hussung refused to provide him with 

medical treatment after he was handcuffed on November 2, 2018. His claims against 

Hussung should be dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies. 

IV. Conclusion

 Because Ezekiel did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to 

his claims against Hussung, Hussung’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 43) 

should be granted, and Ezekiel’s claims against Hussung should be dismissed 

without prejudice. 

 DATED this 28th day of January, 2020. 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:19-cv-00023-JM Document 50 Filed 01/28/20 Page 7 of 7