Opinion ID: 169363
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: M otion for Summary Judgment

Text: After the district court ruled on the M otion to Dismiss, defendants filed a M otion for Summary Judgment. Among other arguments, the defendants asserted Sparks failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by failing to use the administrative grievance process. Sparks filed a “M otion to Deny Defendant(s) M otion for Summary Judgment” and included affidavits regarding the merits of his claims, but did not address the issue of exhaustion. The summary judgment motion was referred to the magistrate judge who recommended defendants’ motion be granted in part and the 1 Prior to the district judge’s ruling, Sparks was transferred back to the Arkansas V alley Correctional Facility. Contrary to the ruling, however, Lieutenant Foster left his position at the Arkansas V alley Correctional Facility to become an STG coordinator at the Colorado State Penitentiary several years prior to this complaint being filed. -5- law suit dismissed without prejudice in its entirety based upon Sparks’ failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Sparks filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on December 20, 2005. In it, Sparks claimed for the first time “[a] trial would reveal through records held by the defendants that the Plaintiff did attempt to exhaust administrative remedies, by requesting from facility chain of command, starting with Plaintiffs’ Case M anager Olsen, to Head Case M anager Clarkson, and assistant W arden Soares, a grievance on the issue of being forced to work in a hostile area, as a tool to defuse a facility uprising.” (R. Vol. I, Doc. 77 at 2.) Sparks further asserted that once the authorities declined to issue a grievance the issue was ended. On February 21, 2006, the district court ruled on the defendants’ M otion for Summary Judgment after considering the magistrate judge’s recommendations. The district judge deemed Sparks’ objections to the magistrate’s recommendation as timely and conducted a de novo review of his objections. The district court granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed Sparks’ Eighth Amendment claims without prejudice because Sparks failed to prove he exhausted the available administrative remedies. A separate judgment dismissing Sparks’ complaint with prejudice was entered on February 22, 2006, which incorporated both the order granting partial dismissal and the order granting summary judgment for the defendants. Sparks filed a notice of appeal and motion to proceed in form a pauperis -6- (ifp) on M arch 22, 2006. The district court denied Sparks’ motion to proceed ifp on April 17, 2006. It determined, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the appeal was not taken in good faith because Sparks did not show the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. Sparks renew ed his ifp application with this Court and consented to the disbursement of partial payments from his prison account toward the filing fee.