Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00155/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cole
Defendant
Kendrick Story
Plaintiff
Walker
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

 PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

KENDRICK STORY, 

ADC #109934 PLAINTIFF 

5:19CV00155-DPM-JTK 

WALKER, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following partial recommended disposition has been sent to United States District 

Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this 

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

the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the 

evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be 

received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days 

from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing 

party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of 

fact. 

If you are objecting to the recommendation and desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a 

hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 5:19-cv-00155-DPM Document 27 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 7
2 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the 

District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or 

other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge. 

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. 

Mail your objections and AStatement of Necessity@ to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

 DISPOSITION 

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff Kendrick Story is a state inmate incarcerated at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas 

Department of Correction (ADC). He filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, alleging 

unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Doc. No. 2) 

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in Support, and 

Statement of Facts on the issue of exhaustion, filed by Defendants Walker and Cole (Doc. Nos. 

20-22), to which Plaintiff responded (Doc. Nos. 23-25). 

II. Facts 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged his cell flooded on February 22, 2019, and he was forced 

to stay in that cell for six hours with urine and human waste on the floor. (Doc. No. 2, p. 6) In 

addition, he claimed both Defendants refused to move him to a cell with running water and a 

functional toilet and that he was not given any water or bathroom breaks from February 22, 2019 

Case 5:19-cv-00155-DPM Document 27 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 7
3 

until February 24, 2019. (Id.) Plaintiff claimed he also was required to eat his meals and sleep in 

his cell during this time with harmful smells which made him sick for several days. (Id., p. 7) 

III. Summary Judgment Motion 

Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997). AThe moving party bears 

the initial burden of identifying >those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes 

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.=@ Webb v. Lawrence County, 144 

F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (other 

citations omitted)). AOnce the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party cannot 

simply rest on mere denials or allegations in the pleadings; rather, the non-movant >must set forth 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.=@ Id. at 1135. Although the facts are 

viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, Ain order to defeat a motion for summary 

judgment, the non-movant cannot simply create a factual dispute; rather, there must be a genuine 

dispute over those facts that could actually affect the outcome of the lawsuit.@ Id. 

At issue in Defendants’ Motion is whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies 

as to the claim that he was forced to live in his cell without water and a functional toilet for three 

days, as required by the ADC grievance procedure, Administrative Directive (AD) 14-16 (Doc. 

No. 20-1), and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e. Defendants present 

the Declaration of Shirley Lowe, Grievance Coordinator, who states that the grievance process 

consists of an informal resolution, a formal grievance, and a grievance appeal to the Assistant 

Case 5:19-cv-00155-DPM Document 27 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 7
4 

and/or Deputy Director. (Doc. No. 20-4, p.2) In addition, the policy requires that grievants must 

“write a brief statement that is specific as to the substances of the issue or complaint to include 

date, place, personnel involved or witnesses,...” and that inmates must exhaust administrative 

remedies as to all defendants at all levels of the grievance process prior to filing a § 1983 lawsuit. 

(Id.) According to Lowe, Plaintiff’s grievance records indicate that he filed grievance CU-19-

00200, which alleged that ADC left him in his cell on February 22, 2019 for six hours with urine 

and human waste on the floor. (Id., p. 3) However, the initial grievance did not mention the threeday denial of drinking water, running water and access to a toilet, and Plaintiff added that claim 

when he appealed the Warden’s decision. (Id.) Lowe also stated that ADC grievance procedure 

prohibits raising new claims on appeal and that the Deputy Director did not address this additional 

claim on appeal. (Id.) 

Based on this Declaration and the grievance Plaintiff submitted, Defendants state that the 

claim that he was denied water and toilet facilities for three days should be dismissed, for failure 

to exhaust. 

In response, Plaintiff notes that he raised the issue of not being able to use the bathroom 

and drink any water in the body of his initial grievance, and in his response, the Warden admitted 

that the water was turned off to his cell until the problem was fixed. Plaintiff also submits order 

forms which show that the water was turned off to his cell from February 22, 2019 until February 

24, 2019. (Doc. No. 25, pp. 4-5) 

According to the PLRA, 

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under 

section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner 

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 

Case 5:19-cv-00155-DPM Document 27 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 7
5 

42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a), unconst=l on other grounds, Siggers-El v. Barlow, 433 F.Supp.2d 811, 813 

(E.D. Mich. 2006). The courts have interpreted this provision as a mandatory requirement that 

administrative remedies be exhausted prior to the filing of a lawsuit. In Booth v. Churner, the 

United States Supreme Court held that in enacting the PLRA, ACongress has mandated exhaustion 

clearly enough, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures.@ 532 U.S. 731, 

741 (2001). In addition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in Chelette 

v. Harris, A[t]he statute=s requirements are clear: If administrative remedies are available, the 

prisoner must exhaust them. Chelette failed to do so, and so his complaint must be dismissed, for 

>we are not free to engraft upon the statute an exception that Congress did not place there.=@ 229 

F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Castano v. Nebraska Dep=t of Corrections, 201 F.3d 1023, 

1025 (8th Cir. 2000)). In Johnson v. Jones, the Court held that A[u]nder the plain language of 

section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal 

court....If exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory.@ 340 F.3d 

624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). Finally, in Jones v. Bock, the United States 

Supreme Court held that while the PLRA itself does not require that all defendants be specifically 

named in an administrative grievance, Ait is the prison=s requirements, and not the PLRA, that 

define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.@ 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). 

The PLRA requires “proper” exhaustion, which means “using all steps that the agency 

holds out, and doing so properly.” Porter v. Nussle, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (quoting Pozo v. 

McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002)). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with 

an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can 

function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” 

Case 5:19-cv-00155-DPM Document 27 Filed 10/04/19 Page 5 of 7
6 

Porter, 548 U.S. at 90-91. 

 Plaintiff submitted the informal grievance on February 22, 2019, which included his 

allegations against Defendants Walker and Cole that they required him to stay in the cell with 

human waste on that same day for several hours. (Doc. No. 25, p. 6) Plaintiff also stated in that 

grievance, “I have not been able to use the bathroom all day and I’ve not been able to drink any 

water which is also cruel and unusaul (sic) punishment we have not been giveing (sic) any chances 

to use the bathroom or get anything today.” (Id.) This same grievance was resubmitted as a formal 

grievance on February 25, 2019. (Id.) The Warden responded that a blockage in the main drain 

caused the flooding and that water was shut off until maintenance could locate the flooding. (Id., 

p. 7) In his appeal, Plaintiff disagreed with the Warden’s decision and further stated that “I went 

for (3) three days without using the bathroom my cell had no running water this is also a violation 

of my 8th Amendment for cruel and unusual punishment.” (Id., p. 8) In addressing the appeal, the 

Assistant Director stated that he concurred with the Warden’s decision. (Id.) 

The PLRA exhaustion requirement was enacted to Areduce the quantity and improve the 

quality of prisoner suits,@ by Aafford[ing] corrections officials time and opportunity to address 

complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.@ Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 

516, 524, 525 (2002). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s grievance adequately afforded Defendants 

and ADC officials notice of the incident and the complaint, because both at the time of the 

informal grievance, and at the time of the formal grievance three days later, Plaintiff included 

the fact that he was not able to drink any water or use the toilet in his cell. Although Defendants 

claim that the grievance process forbids the addition of claims on appeal, the added “three day” 

language/allegation was never specifically addressed or rejected by ADC officials. Therefore, the 

Case 5:19-cv-00155-DPM Document 27 Filed 10/04/19 Page 6 of 7
7 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants were sufficiently exhausted and that 

Defendants’ Motion should be denied. 

IV. Conclusion 

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

on Exhaustion (Doc. No. 20) be DENIED. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 2019. 

 

_________________________________ 

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 5:19-cv-00155-DPM Document 27 Filed 10/04/19 Page 7 of 7