Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00941/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00941-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shane Green
Defendant
Christopher Paul Lemmer
Plaintiff
Ray Vance
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER PAUL LEMMER, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

v. * No. 4:19-cv-00941-JJV 

 * 

RAY VANCE, et al. * 

 * 

 Defendants. * 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Christopher Paul Lemmer (“Plaintiff”), incarcerated at the Randall Williams 

Correctional Facility, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendant Shane 

Green was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs while Plaintiff was in custody at the 

Sheridan Detention Center.1 (Doc. No. 1). Defendant Green has filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 22-24.) Plaintiff has not responded; this matter is now ripe for a decision. 

For the reasons set out below, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff alleges that while at the Sheridan Detention Center, Defendant Green failed to 

provide him with refills of the prescription medication Hydroxizine. (Doc. No. 1 at 6.) He claims 

he filed medical forms and grievances in connection with his request for refills, but to no avail. 

(Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff also alleged Grant County has a “custom of ignoring the medical and inmate 

                                                            

1

 Shane Green is the only Defendant remaining in this case. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 

Vance were dismissed at Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. Nos. 14, 15.) 

Case 4:19-cv-00941-JJV Document 27 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 4
2

request forms/grievance process.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged violation of 

his rights. (Id. at 7.) 

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper “if the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is 

genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, 

“including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, 

stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory 

answers, or other materials[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

 When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in a 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th 

Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the 

existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 

(8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party’s allegations must be supported by sufficient probative 

evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or 

fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a 

reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the 

outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). 

Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude summary 

judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010). 

Case 4:19-cv-00941-JJV Document 27 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 4
3

IV. ANALYSIS 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires an inmate to exhaust available prison 

grievance procedures before filing suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 

549 U.S. 199, 202 (2007); Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). 

Exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory. Bock, 549 U.S. at 211. “[T]o properly exhaust 

administrative remedies prisoners must ‘complete the administrative review process in accordance 

with the applicable procedural rules,’ rules that are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison 

grievance process itself.” Id. at 218 (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006)). 

Compliance with a prison’s grievance procedures is, therefore, all that is required by the PLRA to 

properly exhaust. Id. Thus, the question as to whether an inmate has properly exhausted 

administrative remedies will depend on the specifics of that particular prison’s grievance policy. 

See id. 

 The Sheridan Detention Center had in place a grievance procedure that, under the PLRA, 

Plaintiff was required to exhaust before filing suit. (Doc. No. 24-1; Doc. No. 24-2 at 2; Doc. No. 

24-3.) The grievance procedure gave an inmate the opportunity to “clearly describe [his] problem” 

and provided for an appeal. (Doc. No. 24-3; Doc. No. 24-1 at 2.) Appeal was the last step of the 

grievance procedure. (See Id.) All grievances and responses are maintained in the inmate’s jail 

file. (Doc. No. 24-1 at 2.) Plaintiff acknowledged in writing that he received a copy of the 

Sheridan Detention Center’s Inmate Rights and Rules of Conduct, which explained the grievance 

procedure. (Doc. No. 24-4.) 

 Defendant Green, the Sheridan Detention Center Administrator, asserts Plaintiff did not 

exhaust any grievance as to lack of medical care: there are no grievance forms in Plaintiff’s file. 

Case 4:19-cv-00941-JJV Document 27 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 4
4

(Doc. No. 24-1 at 2.) Plaintiff did complete inmate request forms and medical forms, but again, 

no grievance. 

 As explained above, the PLRA requires exhaustion. Where, as here, Defendant Green has 

moved for summary judgment, Plaintiff “was required ‘to discard the shielding cloak of formal 

allegations and meet proof with proof by showing a genuine issue as to a material fact.’” Fatemi 

v. White, 775 F.3d 1022, 1046 (8th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). The evidence shows 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his § 1983 claims against Defendant Green. Because Plaintiff has not 

come forward with proof that he did, in fact, exhaust those claims before he sued Defendant Green, 

summary judgment in Defendant Green’s favor is appropriate. 

V. CONCLUSION 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant Green’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED. 

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 US.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis 

appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 

 Dated this 26th day of May 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 4:19-cv-00941-JJV Document 27 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 4