Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00189/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00189-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Estella Bland
Defendant
Correct Care Solutions
Defendant
James McAlphin
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

JAMES MCALPHIN, 

ADC #088328 PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 5:19-CV-189-KGB-BD 

ESTELLA BLAND and 

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections: 

This Recommended Disposition (Recommendation) has been sent to Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. Mr. McAlphin may file written objections to this Recommendation if 

he disagrees with its findings or conclusions. Objections should be specific and should 

include the factual or legal basis for the objection. 

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

within 14 days of this Recommendation. If no objections are filed, Judge Baker can adopt 

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

McAlphin may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

II. Discussion:

Every Richardson, an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) inmate, filed this 

civil rights lawsuit on behalf of himself, James McAlphin, and Kevin Shelton. (Docket 

entry #2) Pursuant to Court policy, the case was filed as three separate lawsuits. 

Case 5:19-cv-00189-KGB Document 9 Filed 07/09/19 Page 1 of 3
2 

Because of Mr. McAlphin’s litigation history, he is not eligible for in forma 

pauperis status absent allegations of imminent danger of serious bodily injury.1

 He did 

not plead facts indicating imminent danger of physical injury; thus, the Court ordered him 

to pay the statutory filing fee within 30 days of June 5, 2019, if he wished to pursue his 

claims. (Docket entry #4) 

 Mr. McAlphin moved for the Court to reconsider its order denying him leave to 

proceed IFP based on litigation history. (#5) He explained that Defendant Bland had 

refused to provide him treatment in April of 2019, and that the failure to provide adequate 

medical care placed him in imminent danger of serious injury. 

The Court denied Mr. McAlphin’s motion for reconsideration (#5) and provided 

him an opportunity to file an amended complaint specifically explaining what medical 

treatment he was being denied and stating the injury resulting from Defendant Bland’s 

conduct. (#6) Mr. McAlphin was given 14 days (until June 27) to file his amended 

complaint. 

Mr. McAlphin has now filed another motion for reconsideration, explaining that 

he is attempting to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his complaints 

about Defendant Bland’s conduct. (#7) He states that those grievances remain “pending.” 

Courts are obligated to dismiss any claims that were not fully exhausted prior to 

the date a complaint is filed. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with 

 

1 The following dismissals constitute “strikes” against Mr. McAlphin for purposes of 

determining eligibility for IFP status: McAlphin v. Norris, E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:97-CV319; McAlphin v. USA, 4:97-CV-525; and McAlphin v. ADC, E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:17- 

CV-176. 

Case 5:19-cv-00189-KGB Document 9 Filed 07/09/19 Page 2 of 3
3 

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”). Thus, allowing Mr. McAlphin to amend his complaint to include claims 

that were not fully exhausted when this complaint was filed would be futile. Furthermore, 

and more to the point, there is no imminent-danger exception to the exhaustion 

requirement. McAlphin v. Toney, 375 F.3d 753, 754 (8th Cir. 2004). 

III. Conclusion: 

 The Court recommends that Mr. McAlphin’s motion for reconsideration (#7) be 

DENIED, and that his claims be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the 

Court’s June 5, 2019 Order requiring him to satisfy the filing fee requirement. In 

addition, Mr. McAlphin’s motion to stay (#8) should be DENIED, as moot. 

 DATED, this 9th day of July, 2019. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:19-cv-00189-KGB Document 9 Filed 07/09/19 Page 3 of 3