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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 24 67

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Je rry Ch am pi on ,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt ,

v.

Lak ei sh a Aki ns , Orig in al ly Sued As Kei sh a Aki n; Dann y Bu rl, Warde n, Eas t A r k a n s a s R e g i o n a l U

n i t , A D C ; T o d d B al l, W ar de n, E as t A rk an sa s R e g i o n a l U n i t , A D C ,
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 ct of Ark an sa s - Hel en a

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 26 , 20 12 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 25 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, 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 Je rry Ch am pi on br ou gh t a 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n cl ai m in g de fen da nt pr is on pe rs on ne l kn ew of bu t di sr eg ard ed hi s m ed ic al ly pr es cri be d di et inv i o la ti on of hi s Eig ht h Am en dm en t rig ht s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d de fen da nt s ’ 1

su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns an d d en ie d C ha m pi on ’s. He app eal s.

Ch am pi on arg ue s th at de fen da nt Offi cer Aki ns knew of Ch am pio n’ s pr es cr ibed di et an d th en de li be rat e di sr eg ard ed it

. The un di sp ut ed ev id en ce sh owe d th at W ard en Bu rl’s in ve st ig at io n in to Ch am pi on ’s gr ie va nc e rev eal ed th a t t h e ki tc he n st aff

m is ta ke nl y ha d om it te d Cha m pi on fro m th e ro st er of di et -m eal reci pi en ts

. At m os t, th eref or e, th e ev id en ce m ig ht sh ow th at Aki ns was ne gl ig en t in fai li ng to reco gn iz e

or acco m m od at e Ch am

pi on ’s di et de sp it e th e fai lu re of t h e k i t c h e n st aff to in cl ud e Ch am pi on on th e ro st er us ed by Aki n. A sh owi ng o f n e g l i g e n ce is in su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h li ab il it y un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. See Farm er v

. Bren na n, 51 1 U.S. 82 5, 8 35 , 83 7 (1 99 4)

.

Ch am pi on di d no t ex ha us t hi s ad m in is tr at ive re m ed ie s as to de fend an ts W ard en Bu rl a nd W ard en Bal l. Whil e h e ad dr es se d th em as read ers in hi s gri ev an ces ab ou t Aki ns , he di d no t st at e in an y ex ha us te d gr ie va nc e ho w Bu rl an d Bal l were in vo lv ed in th e gr ie ve d in ci de nt s, as req ui red by th e Ark an sa s Dep art m en t of C o r r e c t i o n gr ie v a n c e p ol ic y

. See 42 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) (p ris on er m us t ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s b efo re b rin gi ng su it un de r fed eral law) ; Jo ne s v . Boc k, 5 49 U.S. 19 9, 2 18 (2 00 7) (“ The le ve l of de ta il ne ces sa ry in a gr ie v a n ce to co m pl y wit h th e gr ie va nc e pr oc ed ur es wil l va ry fro m syste m to syste m an d cl ai m to cl ai m , bu t it is th e pr is on ’s
req ui rem en ts

. . . th at de fin e th e b ou nd ari es of p ro pe r ex ha us ti on .”).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t. See 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B. W e d en y Ch am pi on ’s pen di ng m ot io ns

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of A r k a ns as , as to two of th e m ot io ns ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on s of the Hon or ab le J. Th om as Ray, Uni te d S ta te s Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. -2

-