Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_14-cv-00137/USCOURTS-ared-2_14-cv-00137-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danny Burl
Defendant
Corey Dewberry
Plaintiff
Rodney Ford
Defendant
John Munn
Defendant
Frank Scott
Defendant
Ricky Thorne
Defendant
Carshun Westbrook
Defendant
Yolaunda Williams
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

COREY DEWBERRY,

ADC #103900 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 2:14-cv-00137-KGB/JTR

 

RODNEY FORD, Captain,

East Arkansas Regional Unit, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This Court has reviewed the Recommended Partial Disposition submitted by United States

Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. No. 37). Plaintiff Corey Dewberry filed a motion for

extension of time to file objections to Judge Ray’s Recommended Partial Disposition (Dkt. No. 40). 

The Court grants the motion for extension of time and considers as timely filed Mr. Dewberry’s

objections (Dkt. Nos. 40, 42). After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo

review of the record in this case, the Court approves of and adopts in its entirety the Recommended

Partial Disposition.

I. Background

Mr. Dewberry is a prisoner in the East Arkansas Regional Unit (“EARU”) of the Arkansas

Department of Corrections (“ADC”). He filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that: 

(1) on December 18, 2013, defendants Captain RodneyFord, Lieutenant John Munn, Sergeant Frank

Scott, Sergeant Yolaunda Williams, Sergeant Carshun Westbrook, and Warden Danny Burl failed

to protect him from being attacked by two prisoners, and (2) defendant Officer Ricky Thorne issued

a false disciplinary to retaliate against him for filing grievances concerning the December 18, 2013,

attack (Dkt. Nos. 2, 5).

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 10
The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and Mr. Dewberry filed a

response (Dkt. Nos. 27, 34). The undisputed facts show that in December 2013, Mr. Dewberry was

living in barrack 8 at the EARU, along with Frank Askew, Mr. Askew’s nephew, and numerous

other prisoners. On December 9, 2013, Mr. Dewberry and Mr. Askew had a verbal argument. As

a result, Mr. Dewberry was moved to barrack 3. On December 17, 2013, Mr. Dewberry was moved

back into barrack 8, where Mr. Askew and his nephew were still living. On December 18, 2013, Mr.

Askew and his nephew attacked Mr. Dewberry, beat him with a cane, and stabbed him with a shank.

After the attack, Mr. Dewberry submitted three different grievance forms—EAM 14-39,

EAM 14-98, and EAM 14-113. In grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberry named defendants Lt. Munn,

Capt. Ford, Sgt. Williams, and Sgt. Scott. Mr. Dewberry stated that Sgt. Williams and Sgt. Scott

escorted him from barrack 3 to barrack 8. He alleged that one of his attackers made a reference to

“Daddy Burl,” but Mr. Dewberry did not otherwise mention Warden Burl in grievance 14-39 (Dkt.

No. 27, Ex. 3, Grievances, at 1). In that same grievance, Mr. Dewberry alleged that one of the

attackers told him “this looks like some of Westbrook’s mess,” referring to Sgt. Westbrook (Id.). 

Mr. Dewberry did not discuss Sgt. Westbrook any further in grievance 14-39.

After Warden Burl denied grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberry filed an appeal stating that

“Warden Burl is holding me responsible for Lt. Munn and Capt. Ford’s non-execution of duties”

(Id.). Warden Burl did not discuss Sgt. Williams or Sgt. Scott when he declined to take action on

Mr. Dewberry’s grievance. Mr. Dewberry appealed Warden Burl’s decision. In his appeal

statement, Mr. Dewberry stated, “Lt. Munn and Capt. Ford allowed events to transpire that resulted

in the stabbing” (Id., at 2). He did not mention any other defendants in his appeal statement. The

Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) Deputy who reviewed Mr. Dewberry’s appeal

2

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 10
determined:

Your complaint is on 12/17/2014, Staff knowingly moved you back into a barrack

with an inmate whom you had been moved away from due to a previous verbal

altercation. You claim staff failed to protect you.

After reviewing your appeal and all supporting documentation, Ifind documentation

indicate you were moved from 8 barracks to 3 barracks on 12/9/2013, due to a verbal

altercation with inmates in 8 barracks; records also indicate you were moved back to

8 barracks on 12/17/2013 with the same inmates and on 12/18/2013 you were

involved in a physical altercation with some of the same inmates you were involved

in the verbal altercation with. Captain Ford states you were assigned to barrack 8 per

Classification. Due to the evidence submitted in your appeal, I find your appeal with

merit.

Appeal upheld.

By way of this response, I will instruct the unit Warden to take Corrective Action

against staff and forward a copy to my office.

(Id., at 3). After the appeal of grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberry filed grievances 14-98 and 14-113

(Id.). Warden Burl denied those grievances as duplicates of 14-39. Mr. Dewberry appealed Warden

Burl’s decision, which was affirmed by the ADC Deputy.

II. Analysis

A. Official Capacity Claims

Mr. Dewberryfiled his complaint and amended complaint against defendants in their official

and individual capacities. Mr. Dewberry only seeks monetary damages. In his objections to the

Recommended Partial Disposition, Mr. Dewberry contends that the official capacity claims against

defendants should not be dismissed “due to staff placing plaintiff life, health and safety in danger”

by placing him back in barrack 8 after he had been removed because of a verbal altercation with an

inmate assigned to barrack 8 (Dkt. No. 42). Mr. Dewberry contends that the assault that occurred

after he was returned to barrack 8 was the result of inadequate staffing. Further, Mr. Dewberry

3

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 10
maintains that Warden Burl did not discipline the officers who moved Mr. Dewberry from barrack

3 to barrack 8. Mr. Dewberry contends that the fact that the Deputy Director ordered “Warden Burl

to take corrective action [is] proof of exhaustion remedy” (Dkt. No. 42). He maintains that the only

defendant to be dismissed due to lack of exhaustion is Officer Thorne. Mr. Dewberry also contends

that defendants are not entitled to assert the defense of sovereign immunity and cites this Court to

Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1991), and Walters v. W. State Hosp., 864 F.2d 695

(10th Cir. 1988), as support.

The cases cited by Mr. Dewberry do not apply to his fact situation. Judge Ray recommends

dismissal of Mr. Dewberry’s claims against defendants in their official capacities based on sovereign

immunity, not qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit has held that, based on the doctrine of

sovereign immunity, § 1983 provides no cause of action against agents of the State acting in their

official capacities when the plaintiff seeks only monetary damages. Zajrael v. Harmon, 677 F.3d

353, 355 (8th Cir. 2012). This Court is required to follow Eighth Circuit precedent, and the Court

adopts the analysis of this issue set forth in the Recommended Partial Disposition.

B. Exhaustion

Next, this Court turns to Mr. Dewberry’s contention that each of his claims is exhausted. The

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that: “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) invalidated on other grounds by Siggers-El v. Barlow, 433

F.Supp.2d 811 (E.D. Mich. 2006). The purposes of the exhaustion requirement include “allowing

a prison to address complaints about the program it administers before being subjected to suit,

4

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 4 of 10
reducing litigation to the extent complaints are satisfactorily resolved, and improving litigation that

does occur by leading to the preparation of a useful record.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219

(2007); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 89–91 (2006). In Jones, the Court said, “[t]here is

no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be

brought in court.”• Id. at 211. The PLRA requires that inmates fully and properly exhaust their

administrative remedies as to each claim in the complaint prior to filing an action in federal court. 

Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.

2000). The level of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will

varyfrom system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA,

that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218; see also Woodford, 548

U.S. at 90–91. Thus, to satisfy the PLRA, a prisoner must fully comply with the specific procedural

requirements of the incarcerating facility. 

For an ADC inmate, full and proper exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that the

inmate file an informal resolution form, file a grievance to the Warden (if the informal resolution

attempt is unsuccessful), and appeal the denial of that grievance to the ADC Deputy/Assistant

Director (Dkt. No. 27, Ex. 2, ADC Admin. Directive, 4–5). The provision of the ADC exhaustion

policyat issue here states, “[g]rievances must specificallyname each individual involved for a proper

investigation and response to be completed by the ADC” and “[i]nmates who fail to name all parties

during the grievance process may have their lawsuit or claim dismissed by the court or commission

for failure to exhaust against all parties.” Id. In addition, the grievance procedure states: “[i]nmates

are hereby advised that they must exhaust their administrative remedies as to all defendants at all

levels of the grievance procedure before filing a Section 1983 lawsuit and Claims Commission

5

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 5 of 10
claim. If this is not done, their lawsuits or claims may be dismissed immediately.” Id. Finally, the

grievance forms themselves remind inmates that in the grievance they must state the name of

personnel involved.

In the present case, Mr. Dewberry submitted three different grievance forms—EAM 14-39,

EAM 14-98, and EAM 14-113. In grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberry named defendants Lt. Munn,

Capt. Ford, Sgt. Williams, and Sgt. Scott. The parties agree that Mr. Dewberryexhausted his claims

against defendants Lt. Munn and Capt. Ford by following all ADC administrative procedures for

grievance 14-39. Therefore, this Court focuses on defendants Sgt. Williams, Sgt. Scott, Warden

Burl, and Sgt. Westbrook.

1. Sgt. Williams and Sgt. Scott

In grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberry stated that defendants Sgt. Williams and Sgt. Scott

escorted him from barrack 3 to barrack 8. That statement, however, is the only statement regarding

these two defendants in grievance 14-39. In his amended complaint, Mr. Dewberry alleged that he

repeatedly warned Sgt. Scott and Sgt. Williams about the danger of moving him back to barrack 8. 

Mr. Dewberry did not include that information in grievance 14-39. After Warden Burl denied

grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberryfiled an appeal alleging that “Warden Burl is holdingme responsible

for Lt. Munn and Capt. Ford’s non-execution of duties” (Dkt. No. 27, Ex. 3, Grievances, at 2). He

did not mention defendants Sgt. Williams or Sgt. Scott. 

Although Mr. Dewberrymentioned defendants Sgt. Scott and Sgt. Williams in grievance 14-

39, Warden Burl did not discuss Sgt. Williams or Sgt. Scott when he declined to take action on Mr.

Dewberry’s grievance. In his appeal statement, Mr. Dewberryunambiguously states, “Lt. Munn and

Capt. Ford allowed events to transpire that resulted in the stabbing.” The ADC Deputy who

6

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 6 of 10
reviewed Mr. Dewberry’s appeal referred generally to the actions of the staff, not to Lt. Munn or

Capt. Ford only (Dkt. No. 27, Ex. 3, Grievances, at 3). 

The record evidence shows that although Mr. Dewberry named Sgt. Williams and Sgt. Scott

in his grievance, he did not specifically name them in his appeal statement. Further, when he named

them in the grievance, he did not allege that either of them knew that he had previously gotten into

an argument with Mr. Askew or was otherwise in danger of being harmed if he returned to barrack

8. He stated only that they escorted him from barrack 3 to barrack 8. 

Although the appeal response indicates that the ADC addressed the actions of the named staff

members in general, Mr. Dewberry did not name all staff members when taking his appeal and his

identification of Sgt. Williams and Sgt. Scott in his grievance was not sufficient to put the ADC on

notice of a complaint regarding their actions, knowledge, or intent. The ADC policy specifically

requires Mr. Dewberry to name these individuals at every level of the grievance process (Dkt. No.

27-2, 4–5 (ADC Adm. Dir. 12-16 § IV(N) (advising inmates “that they must exhaust their

administrative remedies as to all defendants at all levels of the grievance procedure before filing a

Section 1983 lawsuit and Claims Commission claim” and warning that lawsuits may be dismissed

immediately if this is not done))). For these reasons, this Court agrees with the Partial

Recommended Disposition that Mr. Dewberry did not satisfy the PLRA requirement of exhausting

administrative remedies with regard to defendants Sgt. Williams and Sgt. Scott in grievance 14-39. 

Moreover, on this record, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the ADC actually reviewed

allegations of misconduct against Sgt. Williams and Sgt. Scott. Therefore, this Court adopts the

Partial Recommended Disposition to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Mr.

Dewberry’s claims against Sgt. Williams and Sgt. Scott.

7

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 7 of 10
2. Warden Burl

Next, this Court turns to Mr. Dewberry’s allegations against Warden Burl. In his amended

complaint, Mr. Dewberry contends that Warden Burl failed to prevent the attack or failed to take

corrective action against Lt. Munn and Capt. Ford after the attack. Mr. Dewberrydid not raise either

of these issues at the administrative level. Therefore, this Court adopts the Partial Recommended

Disposition to grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Mr. Dewberry’s claims

against Warden Burl for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the PLRA.

In grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberry stated that one of the inmates said he was going to “tell

Daddy Burl.” Mr. Dewberry’s grievance contains no other reference to Warden Burl and does not

allege any action by Warden Burl relating to Mr. Dewberry’s transfer from barrack 3 to barrack 8. 

Mr. Dewberry filed two subsequent grievances, EAM 14-098 and EAM 14-0113 (Dkt. No. 27, Ex.

3, Grievances). In those grievances, Mr. Dewberry did not mention Warden Burl in the unit level

grievance statement. Instead, after Warden Burl denied each of those grievances as duplicative of

grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberry asserted that Warden Burl was refusing to hold his staff responsible

for their actions and was refusing to take corrective measures against the staff involved. The ADC

grievance procedure does not permit inmates to raise new issues on appeal that were not part of their

original grievance (Dkt. No. 27-2, at III(D), IV(G)(2)). In fact, the grievance appeal form specifically

states, “Do not list additional issues, which are not part of your original grievance as they will not

be addressed” (Dkt. No. 27, Ex. 3, Grievances, at 5, 8). Mr. Dewberry’s complaints against Warden

Burl were additional issues not raised in his original grievance. As a result, those issues could not

properly be considered during the appeal process. Because Mr. Dewberry did not follow the proper

grievance procedure with regard to his complaints against Warden Burl, he did not exhaust his

8

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 8 of 10
administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90–91 (2006)

(“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.”).

3. Sgt. Westbrook

Finally, this Court adopts the Partial Recommended Disposition to grant defendants’ motion

for summary judgment with regard to Mr. Dewberry’s claims against Sgt. Westbrook. In his

amended complaint, Mr. Dewberry contends that he advised Sgt. Westbrook that he needed to be

removed from barrack 8 because he was threatened by another inmate. Mr. Dewberry contends that

Sgt. Westbrook left without taking action to protect Mr. Dewberry from the other inmate. Like Mr.

Dewberry’s allegations against Warden Burl, these allegations against Sgt. Westbrook do not appear

in any of Mr. Dewberry’s grievances. In grievance 14-39, Mr. Dewberry alleged that, upon Mr.

Dewberry’s return to barrack 8, another inmate stated, “this may be a set up, looks like some of

Westbrook’s mess. [Your] snitchin butt was gonna get up out of there.” (Dkt. No. 27, Ex. 3,

Grievances, at 1). He did not allege that he informed Sgt. Westbrook of these comments or that Sgt.

Westbrook ignored his concerns. 

To reiterate, the ADC grievance procedure requires that inmates specifically name each

individual involved so that the ADC may conduct a proper investigation and provide an appropriate

response. The grievance form filled out by Mr. Dewberry required that he “be specific as to the . .

. name of personnel involved” (Dkt. No. 27-3, at 1, 4, and 7). Because he did not name Sgt.

Westbrook or otherwise mention anyactions taken bySgt. Westbrook,Mr.Dewberrydid not exhaust

his administrative remedies with regard to the allegations against Sgt. Westbrook. Jones, 549 U.S.

9

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 9 of 10
at 218 (“The level of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will

varyfrom system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA,

that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”). 

III. Conclusion

This Court adopts the Recommended Partial Disposition (Dkt. No. 37). It is therefore

ordered that defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 27). The Court

dismisses with prejudice all claims raised against defendants in their official capacities. The Court

dismisses without prejudice the claims against Officer Thorne, Sgt. Williams, Sgt. Scott, Warden

Burl, and Sgt. Westbrook in their individual capacities. Mr. Dewberrymay proceed with his failure

to protect claims against Capt. Ford and Lt. Munn in their individual capacities only. This Court

certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would

not be taken in good faith.

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2016.

 

Kristine G. Baker 

United States District Judge 

10

Case 2:14-cv-00137-KGB Document 44 Filed 03/02/16 Page 10 of 10