Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00350/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00350-0/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

PHILLIP L. HATTON, 

ADC #121963 PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:19-CV-350-BSM-BD

ESTELLA BLAND, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections:

This Recommendation has been sent to Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may file 

written objections to this Recommendation if they disagree with its findings or 

conclusions. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis 

for the objection. 

To be considered, all objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk 

within 14 days. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Miller can adopt this 

Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, the 

parties may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

II. Discussion:

A. Background

Plaintiff Phillip L. Hatton, an Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC) inmate, 

filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Docket entry #1) In his original and amended complaints, Mr. Hatton claims that 

Case 5:19-cv-00350-BSM Document 34 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendants Bland, Simpson, and Gibson failed to provide him with adequate medical 

care, and that Defendant Gibson retaliated against him.

All three Defendants have moved for summary judgment based on Mr. Hatton’s 

failure to fully exhaust grievances against them regarding the claims raised in this 

lawsuit. (#15, #29) Mr. Hatton responded to the Medical Defendants’ motion. (#28) He 

did not respond to Defendant Gibson’s motion, but the time for responding has now 

passed. Therefore, the motions are ripe for review.

B. Exhaustion

The Court is obligated to dismiss any claim that was not fully exhausted before the 

date Mr. Hatton filed his complaint in this case. 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 only a few limited exceptions to this rule. 

In support of their motions for summary judgment, all Defendants attach the 

declaration of Michelle Buterbaugh, the ADC medical grievance supervisor. (#16-3; #29-

2) Ms. Buterbaugh testifies that Mr. Hatton filed only one medical grievance during the 

time period relevant to this lawsuit: VU-19-665. According to Ms. Buterbaugh, Mr. 

Hatton did not complete the grievance process in VU-19-665; in fact, Mr. Hatton did not 

Case 5:19-cv-00350-BSM Document 34 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 3
3

receive a response to this grievance from the health services administrator until 

November 11, 2019, four days after he filed this lawsuit. 

Mr. Hatton does not dispute this evidence; rather, he explains that he did not 

appeal the response he received to grievance VU-19-665 because he feared that 

Defendant Bland would retaliate against him. (#28 at p.2) Mr. Hatton’s subjective beliefs 

about the exhaustion process do not excuse his failure to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305 F.3d 806, 808 (8th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, the law is 

settled that an inmate must complete the grievance process before filing a civil lawsuit.

In addition to relying on Ms. Buterbaugh’s declaration, Defendant Gibson also 

attaches the declaration of Shirly Lowe, the ADC inmate grievance coordinator. (#29-1) 

Ms. Lowe testifies that, prior to filing this lawsuit, Mr. Hatton did not file any grievance 

complaining that Defendant Gibson failed to provide him medical care or that he 

retaliated against him. (Id. at pp.2-3) Again, Mr. Hatton has not come forward with any 

evidence contradicting Ms. Lowe’s testimony. 

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (#15, 

#29) be GRANTED. Mr. Hatton’s claims should be DISMISSED, without prejudice, 

based on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

DATED, this 28th day of February, 2020.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-00350-BSM Document 34 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 3