Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_24-cv-00157/USCOURTS-ared-2_24-cv-00157-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bradyn Ackerson
Plaintiff
Chad Garrett
Defendant
Celia Hansen
Defendant
Candyce Nichols
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

DELTA DIVISION 

BRADYN ACKERSON 

Reg. #31557-509 PLAINTIFF 

 

V. NO. 2:24-cv-00157-BSM-ERE 

CHAD GARRETT, et al. DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

I. Procedure for Filing Objections 

 This Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge Brian S. 

Miller. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. Any 

objections filed must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your 

objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the date 

of this Recommendation. If you do not file objections, Judge Miller can adopt this 

Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. 

By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

II. Background 

On August 23, 2024, pro se plaintiff Bradyn Ackerson, a federal inmate at 

Forrest City Medium–Federal Correctional Institution (“FCM-FC”), filed this civil 

rights lawsuit. Doc. 2. Because Mr. Ackerson is a federal inmate, he brings this action 

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971). 

Case 2:24-cv-00157-BSM Document 17 Filed 01/16/25 Page 1 of 5
2 

 Mr. Ackerson is proceeding on medical deliberate indifference claims against 

Defendants Warden Chad Garrett, Health Services Secretary Candyce Nichols, and 

Health Services Director Celia Hansen. 

Defendants have now filed a motion for summary judgment, brief in support, 

and statement of facts arguing that Mr. Ackerson failed to fully exhaust his 

administrative remedies as to his pending claims before filing his lawsuit. Docs. 13, 

14, 15. Mr. Ackerson has not responded to Defendants’ motion, and the time for 

doing so has passed. Doc. 16. The motion is now ripe for review. 

For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

(Doc. 13) should be granted. 

III. Discussion 

A. The PLRA Makes Exhaustion Mandatory 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires the Court to dismiss any 

claim raised that was not fully exhausted before filing a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 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) (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 

Case 2:24-cv-00157-BSM Document 17 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 5
3 

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

the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”). 

Importantly, “it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define 

the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). 

Thus, the PLRA required Mr. Ackerson to satisfy the BOP’s requirements for raising 

and exhausting his pending claims before bringing this action.1

B. The BOP’s Grievance Procedure 

The BOP has a four-level administrative process for resolving inmate 

grievances: (1) an attempt at informal resolution with prison staff; (2) if informal 

resolution fails, submission of a formal request for administrative remedy to the 

Warden on form BP-9; (3) if dissatisfied with the Warden’s response, the inmate 

must appeal to the appropriate Regional Director, commonly referred to as a “BP10”; and (4) if the inmate is dissatisfied with the Regional Director’s response, the 

inmate must appeal to the General Counsel (also known as Central Office 

Administrative Remedy Appeal to the General Counsel), and commonly referred to 

as a “BP-11.” 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13–542.18. An administrative remedy is not deemed 

exhausted unless it has been properly presented at all four levels of the administrative 

1 There are exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, but they are few and narrow 

in scope. For example, an inmate’s subjective belief about the futility of the exhaustion 

process or his misunderstanding about the process are irrelevant in determining whether 

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

2000). 

Case 2:24-cv-00157-BSM Document 17 Filed 01/16/25 Page 3 of 5
4 

remedy process and the inmate’s requests were denied at each level. Bureau of 

Prisons Program Statement (“P.S.”) 1330.18(9). 

 C. Mr. Ackerson’s Grievance History 

In support of their motion, Defendants submit the affidavit of Joshua Sutton, 

Executive Assistant and Administrative Remedy Coordinator at the Federal 

Correctional Complex in Forrest City, Arkansas. Doc. 15-1. Mr. Sutton testifies 

that, Mr. Ackerson, since being incarcerated, has submitted five administrative 

remedy requests or appeals, including four administrative remedy requests related to 

the claims raised in this case, 1192540-RI, 1192931-FI, 1201504-FI, and 1221787-

FI. Id. at 4. 

However, Mr. Ackerson failed to complete the exhaustion process as to any 

of these administrative remedy requests, none of which were appealed to the fourth 

and final step of the administrative process, the Central Office Administrative 

Remedy Appeal to the General Counsel. Doc. 15-1 at 5. 

Mr. Ackerson has failed to come forward with any evidence contradicting Mr. 

Sutton’s testimony; nor has he presented any argument that he was either precluded 

from fully exhausting his administrative remedies or that the grievance procedure 

was unavailable to him. Based on the record before me, there is no genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether Mr. Ackerson fully exhausted his pending claims against 

Defendants before bringing this lawsuit. As a result, Mr. Ackerson’s claims should 

Case 2:24-cv-00157-BSM Document 17 Filed 01/16/25 Page 4 of 5
5 

be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to fully exhaust his administrative 

remedies. 

IV. Conclusion: 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13) be GRANTED. 

2. Mr. Ackerson’s claims be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. 

3. The Clerk be instructed to close this case. 

DATED 16 January 2025.

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:24-cv-00157-BSM Document 17 Filed 01/16/25 Page 5 of 5