Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_15-cv-00004/USCOURTS-ared-1_15-cv-00004-2/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

CELECIA GANTHER,

ADC #705329 PLAINTIFF

V. 1:15CV00004 DPM/JTR

 

JOSEPH HUGHES, DR.,

McPherson Unit, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

The followingRecommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent

to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may file written

objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and include the

factual or legal basis for disagreeing with the Recommendation. An objection to a

factual finding mustspecifically identify the finding of fact believed to be wrong and

describe the evidence that supports that belief. 

An original and one copy of the objections must be received in the office of the

United States District Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. If no

objections are filed, Judge Marshall can adopt this Recommendation without

independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may

also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

Case 1:15-cv-00004-DPM Document 58 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 5
I. Discussion

Plaintiff, Celecia Ganther, is a prisoner in the McPherson Unit of the Arkansas

Department of Correction. She has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that

Defendants failed to provide her with constitutionally adequate medical care for a

benign facial tumor. Docs. 2 & 21. 

The Defendants have filed four Motions for Summary Judgment arguing that

the case should be dismissed, without prejudice, because Plaintiff failed to properly

exhaust her administrative remedies. Docs. 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 47, 53,

& 54. Plaintiff has filed several Responses. Docs. 44, 46, 51, 52, & 57. Thus, the

issues are joined and ready for disposition.

For the following reasons, the Court recommendsthat Defendants' Motions be

granted, and this case dismissed, without prejudice.1

II. Discussion

The Prison Litigation ReformAct (“PLRA”) providesthat: “No action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of thistitle, or any other

1

 Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to

the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). 

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of

material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once that has been done, the nonmoving party must present

specific facts demonstrating that there is a material dispute for trial. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c);

Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011).

-2-

Case 1:15-cv-00004-DPM Document 58 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 5
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 purposes of the exhaustion requirement include “allowing a prison to

address complaints about the program it administers before being subjected to suit,

reducing litigation to the extent complaints are satisfactorily resolved, and improving

litigation that does occur by leading to the preparation of a useful record.” Jones v.

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81-89-91

(2006). 

The PLRA requires inmates to: (1) fully and properly exhaust their

administrative remedies as to each claim in the complaint; and (2) complete the

exhaustion process prior to filing an action in federal court. Johnson v. Jones, 340

F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000).

Importantly, the Supreme Court has emphasized that "it is the prison's requirements,

and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones, 549 U.S.

at 218; see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 (explaining that administrative exhaustion

“means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly so that the

agency addresses the issues on the merits”). Thus, to satisfy the PLRA, a prisoner

must fully comply with the specific procedural requirements of the incarcerating

facility. Id.

-3-

Case 1:15-cv-00004-DPM Document 58 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 5
To fully exhaust administrative remedies, an ADC prisoner must file: (1) an

informal resolution with the designated problem solver; (2) a grievance with the

Warden; and (3) an appeal to the ADC Deputy/Assistant Director. Doc. 24, Ex. A

(ADC Adm. Dir. 14-16 § IV(E) through (G) (2014). Importantly, the ADC's

exhaustion policy advises prisonersthat their federal lawsuit may be dismissed if they

fail to comply with those requirements. Id. (§ IV(N)).

Here, the undisputed evidence demonstratesthat Plaintiff did not fully exhaust

any grievances about the medical treatment she was receiving for a facial tumor

before she commenced this lawsuit. Doc. 24, Exs. A, B, & C. Plaintiff argues that

ADC officialsimproperly rejected several of her grievance appeals as being untimely

filed. Doc. 44. However, each of those rejected appeals concerned the medical

treatment she was seeking for foot problems and a bruised shoulder -- not the facial

tumor that is the subject of this lawsuit. Doc. 24, Ex. C; see also Burns v. Eaton, 752

F.3d 1136, 1137 (8th Cir. 2014) (clarifying that a prisoner must exhaust his specific

claims against each separate defendant).

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that, on June 30, 2015 -- approximately six months

after she commenced this lawsuit -- she fully exhausted her administrative remedies

on the claims she is now asserting in this action. Doc. 51. It is well settled that a

prisoner must complete allstages of the prison's exhaustion process before that claim

-4-

Case 1:15-cv-00004-DPM Document 58 Filed 10/08/15 Page 4 of 5
can be properly pursued in federal court. See Johnson, 340 F.3d at 627 (8th Cir.

2003) (holding that: "If exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal

is mandatory”).

The undisputed evidence demonstratesthat, prior to commencing this lawsuit,

Plaintiff did not properly exhaust her administrative remedies on the claims she is

now asserting in this action. Accordingly, all Defendants are entitled to summary

judgment and the claims against them should be dismissed, without prejudice. See

Jones, 549 U.S. at 211 (emphasizing that: “There is no question that exhaustion is

mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court”).

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 23, 30, 40, & 53)

be GRANTED, and this case DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in

forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be

taken in good faith. 

Dated this 8th day of October, 2015.

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-

Case 1:15-cv-00004-DPM Document 58 Filed 10/08/15 Page 5 of 5