Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140825_0002283.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-05 00:27:14
Document Index: 561456428

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1997']

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 48.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Dr. William Miles and Correct Care Solutions (collectively, "Defendants"). [Doc. 1.] Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on July 25, 2014. [Doc. 48.] By Order filed the same day pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. [Doc. 49.] Plaintiff filed a document, which the Clerk of Court construed as a response in opposition, [1] on August 6, 2014, and another response on August 11, 2014. [Docs. 60, 65.] Defendants filed a reply on August 18, 2014. [Doc. 68.] The motion is ripe for review.
Plaintiff, who is a pretrial detainee in the Lexington County Detention Center ("LCDC"), filed this § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. [Doc. 1.] In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he has been denied proper medical care from the time he was detained on March 4, 2013. [Doc. 1 at 3.] He claims he requested medical care on approximately forty different occasions and was seen only four times. [ Id. ] When he was seen by medical staff, Plaintiff asserts the visits lasted less than five minutes. [ Id. ] Plaintiff states he is experiencing pain and suffering as a result of several medical conditions that require monitoring, including deep vein thrombosis and blood clots in his lungs. [Doc. 1 at 3-4.] Plaintiff asks the Court to grant him a declaration that the acts and omission violate his rights and preliminary and permanent injunctions. [Doc. 1 at 5.] He also requests $30, 000 in compensatory damages, $700 per day in compensatory damages for pain and suffering and mental anguish, attorneys fees and costs, a jury trial, and any other relief the Court deems equitable. [ Id. ]
Section 1983 provides, in relevant part, "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress..."
Defendants contend, among other arguments, the case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [Doc. 48 at 7-10.] The Court agrees.
Section 1997e(a) of 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). As the United States Supreme Court observed:
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Consequently, the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is mandatory and "applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong." Id. at 524, 532. The exhaustion requirement applies even if the relief sought in the civil action is not available in the administrative proceedings. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).
Exhaustion is defined by each prison's grievance procedure, not the PLRA; an inmate must comply with his prison's grievance procedure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). An inmate's failure to "properly take each step within the administrative process... bars, and does not just postpone, suit under § 1983." Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002); see also White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593, 595 (6th Cir. 1997) (upholding dismissal of an inmate's complaint because the inmate failed to proceed beyond the first step in the administrative grievance process). But see Jones, 549 U.S. at 219-24 (rejecting "total exhaustion rule" and holding that when presented with a complaint containing exhausted and unexhausted claims, courts should "proceed[] with the good and leave[] the bad"). Courts within the District of South Carolina have found an inmate exhausts his administrative remedies when he completes all steps of a prison's grievance procedure, and § 1997e(a) does not require inmates to further appeal to South Carolina's Administrative Law Court. See, e.g., Ayre v. Currie, No. 05-3410, 2007 WL 3232177, at *7 n.5 (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2007); Charles v. Ozmint, No. 05-2187, 2006 WL 1341267, at *4 (D.S.C. May 15, 2006).
Exhaustion is an affirmative defense; an inmate is not required to plead exhaustion in his complaint. Jones, 549 U.S. at 211-12; Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health Servs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674, 681 (4th Cir. 2005). However, to survive a motion for summary judgment asserting he failed to exhaust, the inmate is required to produce evidence in response to the motion that refutes the claim that he failed to exhaust. See Hill v. Haynes, 380 F.Appx. 268, 270 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished opinion) (holding that "to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial" (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2))); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24 (stating that once the party seeking summary judgment demonstrates there is no genuine issue of material fact, the non-moving party, to survive the motion for summary judgment, must demonstrate specific, material facts exist that give rise to a genuine issue).
Plaintiff asserts he filed three separate grievances complaining of improper medical care. [Doc. 1 at 2.] However, he is unable to produce the grievances and has no other evidence that he followed the grievance procedure of LCDC. Defendants have submitted the affidavit of Melissa Lyons ("Lyons"), the grievance manager for LCDC, to establish Plaintiff did not follow the proper grievance procedures. [Doc. 48-1.] The procedures require an inmate to fill out an "Inmate Request" form within three days after the issue arises. [ Id. at 1, 5.] An officer then reads the grievance and either handles it directly, or, if he cannot, forwards the grievance to the Programs Coordinator or Administrative Assistant. [ Id. at 5-6.] The Program Coordinator/Administrative Assistant stamps the grievance, forwards it to the appropriate person, and keeps an electronic file on the grievance. [ Id. at 6] The Bureau Commander or designee is responsible for investigating the claim and must issue a written response within ten working days of the date the grievance was received. [ Id. ] If, upon the response, the inmate is not satisfied, the inmate may file a written appeal to the Chief Deputy/Assistant Sheriff within 48 hours of his receipt of the response. [ Id. ] Lyons states the grievance procedure is in the inmate rules, which are given to each inmate when they are booked in and are posted in every housing unit. [ Id. ¶ 5.]
Between October 14, 2013 and March 21, 2014, Lyons reports she received one grievance, dated March 10, 2014, referring to Plaintiff's medical care. [ Id. ¶ 8.] On March 10, 2014, Lyons answered the grievance by alerting Plaintiff she was referring the matter to medical for a response. [ Id.; Doc. 48-1 at 12.] Plaintiff appealed Lyons's answer but did not wait for a response from medical. [Doc. 48-1 at 12.] Medical responded to the grievance on March 18, 2014, within the ten days provided by LCDC's grievance procedure. [Doc. 48-1 at 13.] Plaintiff failed to appeal medical's response to the grievance. [ Id. ¶ 8.] This does not constitute "proper exhaustion" under 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."). Plaintiff has failed to show that he properly exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing any grievance related to his medical care within ten days after receipt of the notice of decision, as required by the LCDC grievance procedure. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.[2]
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends Defendants' motion for summary judgment be GRANTED.