# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 12 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Bi ll y Mac k Ni ch ol s, J r.,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt ,

v.
So nya A. Pepp er-Da vi s, Dr., Tuc ke r Max Secu rit y Uni t In fir m an ry ; Av a Green -Mc Dowel l, In fir m ary Man ag er/ Heal th Serv ic es Adm in is tra to r, Tuck er Ma x Secu rit y Uni t; Marv in Hug he y , Direc to r of Nurs in g, Tu ck er Ma xi m

m Secu rit y Uni t In firm ary; Bel in da Jac ks on , Nurs e,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - P in e Bl uf f

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ne 12 , 20 15 Fi le d: Ju ne 22 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Ark an sa s in m at e Bi ll y Nich ol s, Jr

. ap pe al s aft er th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d his 1 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 com

plai nt wit ho ut pr ejud ic e fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t hi s ad m in is tra ti ve
rem ed ie s, an d de ni ed hi s va rio us m ot io ns

. In th is co ur t, he ha s m ov ed fo r ap po in te d

co un se l, t o s tri ke ap pe ll ees ’ br ie f, an d fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n.
Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, se e Ki ng v. Io wa Dep ’t of Co rr

. , 59 8 F.3 d 10 51 , 10 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y di sm is se d Nich ol s’s

co m pl ai nt wit ho ut pr ejud ic e be cau se it was un di sp ut ed th at he ha d no t ex ha us te d hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s at the ti m e he fil ed su it , se e 42 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) ; Boo th v. Ch ur n er , 53 2 U.S. 73 1, 73 8 (2 00 1) ; Por te r v. St ur m , 78 1 F.3 d 44 8, 45 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ); Jo hn so n v. Jo ne s , 34 0 F.3 d 62 4, 62 7- 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed Nich ol s’s m ot io n to am en d hi s co m pl ai nt , se e Si lv a v. Metro

. Li

fe In s. Co

. , 76 2 F.3 d 7 11 , 71 9- 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), an d pr op erl y de ni ed hi s m ot io ns fo r in

jun ct iv e rel ie f up on di sm is si ng th e co m pl ai nt

. W e no te th at

2

a ne w cas e ha s be en op en ed on Nich ol s’s be ha lf in th e di st ric t co ur t, an d th at he m ay
co nt in ue to l i t i g at e th es e is su es , i nc lu di ng whe th er a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n sh ou ld be en te red , in th at act io n. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

. Se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B. In ad di ti on , Nich ol s’s m ot io ns on ap pe al are d en ie d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep or ts an d reco m m en da t i o n s o f th e Hon or ab le Bet h Dee re, Un it edSta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s. The de n i a l of Nich ol s’s m ot io n fo r a te m po rary res tra in in g or de r is no t 2
rev ie wab le on ap pe al

. Se e Hamm v. Gr oo se , 15 F.3d 11 0, 1 12 -1 3 (8 th Cir . 19 94 ).
-2

-