Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_08-cv-00025/USCOURTS-ared-4_08-cv-00025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Does
Defendant
Rick Heart
Defendant
Elizabeth Hooker
Defendant
Clifton Blake Thomas
Plaintiff
Don Webb
Defendant

Document Text:

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

CLIFTON BLAKE THOMAS PLAINTIFF

ADC #653527

V. NO: 4:08CV00025 WRW/HDY

DON WEBB et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

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

William R. Wilson, 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 eleven (11) 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 also 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 4:08-cv-00025-BRW Document 22 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 4
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 “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, a resident at the Central Arkansas Community Punishment Center (“Center”), filed

a pro se complaint (docket entry #1), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on January 11, 2008. Now

pending is a motion for summary judgment (docket entry #17), along with a brief in support (docket

entry #18), and statement of facts (docket entry #19), filed by Defendants Don Webb, Rick Heart,

and Elizabeth Hooker. Despite being granted additional time to file a response (docket entry #20),

Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.

I. Standard of review

Summary judgment is only appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Court must

view the facts, and inferences to be drawn from those facts, in the light most favorable to the

Case 4:08-cv-00025-BRW Document 22 Filed 05/01/08 Page 2 of 4
3

nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party has failed to make a

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case. Celotex,

477 U.S. at 322-23. The Eighth Circuit has held that “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the

outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”

Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

II. Analysis

According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants have denied him medical treatment for his

mental illness. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, he has been unable to control his behavior, and is

having disciplinary problems at the Center. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies, the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Webb, Heart, and Hooker, should

be granted. Additionally, because Plaintiff has not specifically identified any Doe Defendants, his

entire complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.

Lack of exhaustion is an affirmative defense, which must be proved by defendants, and need

not be pleaded by the plaintiff. Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005)(per curiam).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) “requires a prisoner to exhaust ‘such administrative

remedies as are available before suing over prison conditions.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733-

34 (2001). The Eighth Circuit has reaffirmed that the exhaustion process must be fully completed

prior to filing suit, and, if not, dismissal of the complaint is “mandatory.” Johnson v. Jones, 340

F.3d 624, 628 (8th Cir. 2003). 

According to a declaration from Lana Hoggard, the officer responsible for reviewing

residents’ grievances, Plaintiff did not exhaust, or even file, the grievances he attached to his

Case 4:08-cv-00025-BRW Document 22 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 4
4

complaint (docket entry #17, exhibit B). In their statement of facts, Webb, Heart, and Hooker,

further assert that Plaintiff failed to file any grievances regarding the issues in his complaint. The

statements of fact filed by Webb, Heart, and Hooker, regarding Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust are

uncontradicted. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and his

complaint should be dismissed.

In addition to Webb, Heart, and Hooker, Plaintiff has named certain Does, or the facility

itself, as Defendants. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide any specific information as to any

other individuals whom he claims violated his constitutional rights. To the extent that Plaintiff is

attempting to sue the Center itself, the Court notes that a facility is not subject to suit. See Owens

v. Scott County Jail, 328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (a jail is not a person or entity subject to

suit under § 1983). Thus, Plaintiff’s entire complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Don Webb, Rick Heart, and

Elizabeth Hooker (docket entry #17), be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED

WITH OUT PREJUDICE.

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

appeal from this order or any judgment entered hereunder, would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 1 day of May, 2008.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-00025-BRW Document 22 Filed 05/01/08 Page 4 of 4