Williams v. King et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 _ Filed 05/13/25 Page 1 of 18 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DAMONT ANDRE WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF
V. Civil No. 4:24-CV-04087-SOH-BAB
NURSE KING, Miller County Detention Center (MCDC); and
DEPUTY JEREMIAH HATLEY, DEFENDANTS.

MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Damont Andre Williams, an inmate at the Miller County Detention Center
(“MCDC’”), has filed the above-captioned civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
generally alleging that the defendants failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical
care following his seizure on August 1, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). See (ECF No. 3). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Court Chief Judge, referred this
case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation on Defendant
Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. (ECF
No. 17). Plaintiff has filed a response, see (ECF No. 24), and Defendant Hatley has filed a reply,
(ECF No. 30). Defendant Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), is therefore
now ripe for the Court’s consideration. For the reasons outlined below, this Court recommends
that Defendant Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), be GRANTED, and that

this matter therefore be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains a sole claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(ECF
No. 1). 	Namely, Plaintiff asserts that on August 1, 2024, he suffered a seizure and injured his arm
when he fell to the ground, but Defendant Hatley, the detention officer assigned to his housing
unit, and the on-duty nurse, Defendant King, failed to provide him with any medical care because
Defendant King assumed he had faked the seizure. 	Id. 	Plaintiff takes prescription medication
for a seizure condition. 	Id. 	He sues the defendants in their individual capacities and requests
compensatory and punitive damages. 	Id.
Upon preservice review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), this
Court ordered that the Complaint be served on Defendants Hatley and King. 	(ECF No. 7). 	After
each Defendant filed his Answer, this Court ordered each Defendant to either file a motion for
summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative
remedies in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by January 6, 2025, or promptly file a notice
informing the Court and Plaintiff that he did not intend to pursue that affirmative defense at trial.
(ECF No. 16). 	On January 6, 2025, Defendant Hatley filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, arguing Plaintiff failed to submit a grievance
concerning his claim for relief. 	(ECF No. 17). 	Defendant Hatley submitted a memorandum and
statement of facts, including four exhibits, in support of his motion. 	(ECF Nos. 18-19). 	This
Court then ordered Plaintiff to respond to the motion and provided instructions on how to respond.
(ECF No. 20). 	Plaintiff’s response was due by January 28, 2025. 	Id.
1 This section does not endeavor to describe every docket entry, only those relevant to the Court’s
consideration of the pending motion for summary judgment.
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Defendant King, however, neither filed a motion for summary judgment nor the required
notice by the January 6, 2025, deadline. 	Thus, on January 7, 2025, this Court ordered Defendant
King to either file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion or submit the
required notice by January 21, 2025, failing which this Court would deem the affirmative defense
of failure to exhaust waived as to Defendant King. 	(ECF No. 21). 	On January 21, 2025,
Defendant King filed a Motion to Adopt Deputy Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment for
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, along with three exhibits in support, see (ECF No.
22), including Plaintiff’s kiosk entry, dated August 2, 2024, (ECF No. 22-3, p. 3). 	This kiosk
entry says that Plaintiff experienced a seizure on August 1, 2024, but no one provided him with
any medical attention, even though he was unconscious. 	Id. 	In response, S. King, RN, Medical
Team Administrator, wrote, “I never thought you were faking a seizure. 	A seizure was reported
and then reported that it was over and you were lying down resting. 	Did not intentionally ignore
you Mr. Williams and I’m sorry if you felt that way.” 	Id.
The day following receipt of Defendant King’s Motion, this Court ordered Plaintiff to
respond and again provided instructions on how to respond. 	(ECF No. 23). 	On January 30,
2025, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting
that he did, in fact, submit a grievance concerning Defendant Hatley and Defendant King’s failure
to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care following his seizure on August 1,
2024, and that Defendant Hatley only submitted his requests in support of his motion for summary
judgment. 	(ECF No. 24). 	In light of this response, this Court ordered Defendant Hatley to
submit a reply by February 14, 2025. 	(ECF No. 25). 	On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a
response to Defendant King’s motion, asserting that Defendant King’s motion, including
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk entry, demonstrates that he exhausted his administrative
remedies. 	(ECF No. 26).
On February 14, 2025, Defendant Hatley submitted a reply, as ordered, asserting that the
grievance identified by Defendant King was “assigned to medical,” and did not reference any
MCDC official. 	(ECF No. 30). 	Defendant Hatley argues that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust
administrative remedies because “Plaintiff provided no notice of any alleged claim against
Defendant Hatley or against Miller County. 	Rather, Plaintiff simply complained to medical staff
and then failed to appeal the response he was given.” 	Id., p. 3. 	Later, this Court granted
Defendant King’s Motion to Adopt Defendant Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, this Court considers the exhibits Defendant King submitted in support of that motion
together with the evidence Defendant Hatley submitted in support of his Motion for Summary
Judgment in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate here. 	Upon consideration of
the entire summary judgment record before it, including Plaintiff’s submissions, this Court agrees
with the Defendants in their conclusion—that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust the MCDC
grievance procedure.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court “shall grant summary judgment 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 dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury
to return a verdict for either party.” 	Ward v. Olson, 939 F. Supp. 2d 956, 961 (D. Minn. 2013)
(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). 	A fact is material only when
its resolution would affect the outcome of a case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Further, the moving party bears the initial burden of identifying “those portions of the
record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” 	Jackson v.
United Parcel Serv., Inc., 643 F.3d 1081, 1085 (8th Cir. 2001). 	In response, the nonmoving party
“may not rest upon mere denials or allegations, but must instead set forth specific facts sufficient
to raise a genuine issue for trial.” 	Forrest v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 285 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 2002).
In considering a summary judgment motion, the court views all the evidence and inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 	Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
FACTS
The following facts are not in dispute: 	The MCDC Handbook (“Handbook”) contains
separate—but nevertheless interrelated—procedures for complaints and grievances. 	(ECF No.
19-4). 	The MCDC complaint procedure is as follows:
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
(ECF No. 19-4, p. 1).
The Handbook outlines the following procedure for grievances:
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 7 of 18 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

c} Classification decisions;
d) Other matters beyond the control of the Miller County Sheriff's Office.
2) Inmates may grieve the following matters:

a) The substance, interpretation and application of policies, rules, and
procedures of the Miller County Jail that affect them personally/directly.
Inmates may not grieve on behalf of another inmate.

b) Staff retaliation for filing a grievance, appeal, or for participating in an inmate
grievance proceeding;

c) Incidents occurring within the facility that affect them personally/directly
including a disciplinary decision;

d) Any matter relating to conditions of care or supervision within the authority
of the Miller County Jail.

3) Grievances shall be routed to the Warden or Risk Management Officer. All
grievances must be responded to within the following established time frames:

a) Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a grievance, the grievance shail
be reviewed and if applicable thoroughly investigated. The investigation
results shall be provided to the Jail Warden or RM Officer, in writing.
Grievances requiring extensive research and documentation may require a
longer period of time for responses. The Jail Warden may extend response
time periods for a reasonable period if necessary. The extension shall be
communicated in writing to the complainant.

b) The Jail Warden will have ten (10) working days from the date of the review,
or when the investigation is complete to review the grievance results and
provide the inmate a written response.

4) Inmates must follow the below procedures to submit a grievance;

a) Ail grievances shall be submitted on a Request for Administrative Remedy
Form, jail form 09.01A obtainable from a shift officer or supervisor.

b) At all levels of the grievance or appeal process, it will be the responsibility
of the inmate to present only specific facts and circumstances directly
relating to the complaint. The inmate should be brief and concise, stating
only one issue per form. The inmate should also state the remedy which
they are seeking and state what the original complaint addressed.
Grievances received without an original complaint and response shall be
promptly returned.

Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 8 of 18 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

Sp VP CEEIPICUUI UL LS MOYUGSL IU! AUT NoUaVe MecUy CU Wy ule

inmate, the form shall be routed to the Facility Warden or Risk Management
Officer. A grievance may be returned to the inmate for resubmission, if it:

(1) Contains more than one issue;

(2) Does not follow the prescribed format;

(3) Seeks a remedy for matters beyond the facility's control;
(4) Contains profanity, unless quoting;

(5) Does not have an original complaint on file.

5) The Warden or RM Officer shall assign the grievance a case number and log
the required information. A thorough investigation shall be conducted and a
sustained or not sustained finding rendered and the case number closed
out. The Request for Administrative Remedy Form shall be forwarded to the
Lieutenant or Captain for distribution.

6) The Lieutenant or Captain shall make a copy of the Request for
Administrative Remedy Form, acknowledged by the Jail Warden or RM Officer,
for the inmate's Classification File. The Lieutenant or Captain shall complete
jail form MCSO “Inmate Acknowledgement for Grievance”. The original
Request for Administrative Remedy Form shall be delivered to the inmate. The
inmate shall acknowledge delivery in writing on the “Inmate Acknowledgement

for Grievance” form.

7) Ifagrievance is determined to be an allegation of misconduct against an MCDC
employee, the allegations shall be investigated by the appropriate authority, in
accordance with agency policy and at the discretion of the Jail Warden.

8) The inmate may appeal the result of the grievance findings to the Jail Warden
by stating they wish to APPEAL the FINDINGS ON THE ‘INMATE

ACKNLOWLEDGEMENT FORW’.
9) If the Jail Warden responded to the grievance their decision is final:

a) The original Request for Administrative Remedy Form, and other relevant
documents, shall be forwarded to the Jail Warden or designee within fifteen
(15) calendar days from the date the inmate signed the “Inmate
Acknowledgement for Grievance” form. The Risk Management Officer shall
assign the appeal a case number and log the required information. Appeais
received after the fifteen (15) calendar days shall be denied and
returned to the inmate.

b) The Jail Warden or designee shall affirm, reverse or modify the decision
within ten (10) working days of receipt of the appeal. Appeals requiring
extensive research and documentation may require a longer period of time
for responses. The Jail Warden may extend response time periods for a

9
(ECF No. 19-4).
Plaintiff was booked into the Miller County Detention Center on June 12, 2024. 	(ECF
No. 19-2, p. 1). 	From the date of his incarceration until the filing of the Complaint (June 12,
2024, to August 21, 2024), Plaintiff submitted several kiosk entries labeled “1st Shift Sgt.,”
assigned to “Shift 1,” and described as a “Request,” on the MCDC electronic kiosk system. 	See
(ECF No. 19-3; ECF No. 30-2, pp. 5-10). 	During that same period, he submitted four entries
labeled “Grievance Officer,” assigned to “Officer G. (admin.),” and described as a “Request.”
(ECF No. 30-2, pp. 1-4). 	Again, during that same period, he submitted two kiosk entries labeled
“Medical Request,” assigned to “Medical M. (Medical),” and described as a “Request,” (ECF No.
22-3, pp. 1-2), and one kiosk entry labeled “Grievance Officer,” assigned to “Medical M.
(Medical),” and described as a “Request,” id., p. 3. 	The latter is at issue here. 	This submission
reads, in full:
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
(ECF No. 22-3, pp. 3; ECF No. 30-2, pp. 11).
The parties dispute whether this kiosk submission properly exhausted the MCDC grievance
procedure. 	The Court now considers whether this dispute precludes summary judgment and finds
that it does not.
ANALYSIS
Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) “requires a prisoner to
exhaust ‘such administrative remedies as are available’ before suing over prison conditions.”
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733 (2001). 	This requirement is mandatory. See Chelette v.
Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 687 (8th Cir. 2000). 	But “[i]f an inmate fails to exhaust one or more
discrete claims raised in the § 1983 complaint, the PLRA requires only that the unexhausted claim
or claims be dismissed—it does not require that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.”
Abdul-Muhammad v. Kempker, 486 F.3d 444, 446 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
199 (2007)).
In determining whether the plaintiff has first exhausted his administrative remedies, courts
look to the prison’s grievance procedure. 	Id. 	“[T]he degree of specificity required in a prison
grievance ‘will vary from system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements,
and not that PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.’” 	Id. (quoting Jones, 549
U.S. at 218)) (emphasis added). 	Thus, to satisfy Section 1997(e)(a)’s exhaustion requirement,
inmates must file grievances in accordance with the institution’s policies and procedures. See
Washington v. Uner, 273 F. App’x 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
91-92 (2006)).
A. 	The MCDC Grievance Procedure
By its express terms, the MCDC grievance procedure begins with an inmate filing a
“complaint” on the MCDC kiosk system. 	(ECF No. 19-4, p. 1). 	Nothing in the complaint
procedure requires the inmate to submit the complaint within a specific timeframe following the
events giving rise to the complaint, nor does the complaint procedure describe what information
the complaint must contain. 	Id. 	Rather, the MCDC grievance procedure simply requires the
inmate to submit a complaint on the kiosk. 	The complaint is then forwarded to “the appropriate
supervisory level to address and respond.” 	Id.
The inmate may only pursue the MCDC grievance procedure if he is not satisfied with the
response he receives from his complaint. 	Id. 	Notably, the complaint procedure only requires the
response to be “timely,” there is also no deadline for responding to an inmate’s complaint.
Relevant here, pursuant to policy, an inmate may grieve “[a]ny matter relating to conditions of
care or supervision within the authority of the Miller County Jail.” 	Id. at p. 2. 	The policy
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
provides, moreover, that to submit a grievance, the grievance “shall be submitted on a Request for
Administrative Remedy form, jail form 09.01A obtainable from a shift officer or supervisor.” 	Id.
With respect to the substance of the grievance, the policy provides that
At all levels of the grievance or appeal process, it will be the
responsibility of the inmate to present only specific facts and
circumstances directly relating to the complaint. 	The inmate
should be brief and concise, stating only one issue per form. 	The
inmate should also state the remedy which they are seeking and state
what the original complaint addressed. Grievances received without
an original complaint and response shall be promptly returned.
Id. (emphasis added). 	The grievance policy expressly provides that failure to include the original
complaint with the grievance constitutes grounds to return the grievance to the inmate for
resubmission. 	Id., p. 3. 	Again, by its express terms, the grievance procedure does not require
inmates to identify the individuals involved in the events giving rise to the grievance or even
require the inmate to submit the grievance within a specific timeframe.
Upon submission, the grievance is routed to the “Warden or Risk Management Officer.”
Id. at p. 2. 	It must be investigated within 30 calendar days of receipt, but the Jail Warden may
extend the response time periods “for a reasonable period if necessary.” 	Id. 	The extension of
time must be communicated in writing to the complainant. 	Id. 	The Jail Warden has ten working
days from the completion of the investigation to review the grievance and provide the inmate a
written response. 	Id. The inmate must acknowledge receipt of the response to the grievance on
the “Inmate Acknowledgement [sic] for Grievance” form. 	Id.
The grievance procedure provides that the inmate may appeal the grievance response by
“stating they wish to appeal the findings on the ‘inmate acknowledgement [sic] form.’” 	Id. 	At
this point, the original Request for Administrative Remedy Form, along with “other relevant
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
documents,” must be forwarded to the Jail Warden within fifteen days. 	Id. 	The Jail Warden or
designee must “affirm, reverse or modify the decision” within ten working days of receipt of the
appeal. 	Id. 	If the Jail Warden responded to the original grievance, then that response is final.
Id. 	Following the disposition of the appeal, the inmate shall acknowledge delivery in writing on
the “Inmate Acknowledgement [sic] for Grievance/Appeal.” 	Id. 	According to policy, officials
must maintain copies of the grievance, results of the investigation, any appeal, and the “Inmate
Acknowledgement for Grievance/Appeal” form in the inmate’s classification file. 	Id. at pp. 2-3.
In this case, Defendant Hatley contends that Plaintiff did not file any grievances about
Defendant Hatley and Nurse King failing to provide him with medical care following his August
1, 2024, seizure. 	(ECF No. 17). 	When confronted with Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk
submission (labeled “Grievance Officer,” assigned to “Medical M.,” and described as a “Request”)
concerning Plaintiff’s August 1, 2024, seizure, Defendant Hatley argues that this “grievance” was
treated as a “medical request” and was “not reviewed or treated as a grievance by Miller County
administration.” 	(ECF No. 30, p. 2). 	Further, Defendant Hatley points out that Plaintiff did not
“appeal” Defendant King’s response to this “grievance.” 	Id. 	For his part, Defendant King
includes a copy of Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk submission as an exhibit in support of his
motion and argues that Plaintiff “failed to submit a sick call regarding his alleged seizure [on
August 1, 2024], or any alleged care required in its aftermath.” 	(ECF No. 22, p. 2). 	In response,
Plaintiff argues that his August 2, 2024, kiosk submission qualifies as a “grievance” and satisfies
the MCDC grievance procedure. 	See (ECF No. 26).
At bottom, Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk submission does not satisfy the MCDC
grievance procedure. 	The MCDC grievance procedure does not require inmates to specifically
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
identify the officials purportedly involved in the incident giving rise to the grievance. 	See (ECF
No. 19-4). 	But this procedure does plainly require inmates to submit a complaint before filing a
grievance and to include the complaint and the response to the complaint when submitting a
grievance on a “Request for Administrative Remedy Form,” or jail form 09.01A. 	That was not
done here.
To be sure, Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk submission was somehow labeled a
“grievance”—notably, there is nothing in the record explaining why or how this label attached to
this submission. 	Setting the label aside, however, the substance of the submission certainly does
not qualify as a “grievance” within the meaning of the MCDC grievance procedure because such
a grievance must include the original complaint and the response to that complaint. 	The substance
of Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk submission contains neither. 	Even if the Court were to ignore
this requirement (which it does not and cannot), the MCDC grievance procedure requires
grievances to be submitted on a “Request for Administrative Remedy Form, jail form 09.01A
obtainable from a shift officer or supervisor.” 	(ECF No. 19-4, p. 2). 	In this case, there is nothing
in the record showing that Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk submission was submitted on the
appropriate form. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk submission does not qualify as
a grievance.
Rather, again, labels notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk submission more
squarely meets the description of a complaint—namely, Plaintiff complained on the kiosk that he
did not receive medical care following his seizure, that kiosk submission was then, pursuant to
policy, “routed to the appropriate person to address,” namely, the medical department. 	See (ECF
No. 19-4, p. 1). 	The medical department—in this case, Defendant King—then responded. 	To
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
the extent that Plaintiff was dissatisfied with this response, pursuant to MCDC policy, his next step
was to submit a grievance, on the appropriate form, along with the necessary paperwork, including
the complaint and response to the complaint. 	See id. 	As described above, this is the part that
was not done here. 	Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024, kiosk submission, therefore, does not satisfy the
MCDC grievance procedure. 	Plaintiff, moreover, points to no other kiosk submission or
grievance that he wishes for this Court to consider in determining whether he properly exhausted
his administrative remedies before initiating this action.2 	On this record, therefore, this Court
finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the MCDC grievance procedure regarding his sole claim that
the defendants failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care following his
August 1, 2024, seizure.
B. 	“As Available”
The finding that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his
claim does not end the Court’s analysis. 	Rather, the Court must also determine whether the
MCDC administrative grievance procedure was “available” to Plaintiff. 	See Smith v. Andrews,
75 F.4th 805, 809 (8th Cir. 2023) (remanding for the district court to determine whether the
prison’s administrative remedies were “available” to plaintiff). 	As the Supreme Court has
explained, “the PLRA contains ‘its own, textual exception’” to the exhaustion requirement. 	Smith
v. Andrews, 75 F.4th 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006)).
Specifically, “an inmate is required to exhaust those, but only those grievance procedures that are
2 Neither Plaintiff’s response to Defendant Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment nor his
response to Defendant King’s Motion to Adopt Defendant Hatley’s Motion for Summary
Judgment was signed under penalty of perjury or notarized. 	See (ECF Nos. 24 & 26). 	This
Court, therefore, considers his responses as argument, not evidence.
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
available, i.e., capable of use to obtain some relief for the action complained of.” 	Id. (cleaned
up). 	The Defendants have the burden to plead and prove that an inmate failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies. 	Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 697 (8th Cir. 2001).
The 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	recognized 	“three 	kinds 	of 	circumstances 	in 	which 	an
administrative remedy, although officially on the books, is not capable of use to obtain relief.”
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643 (2016). 	First, “an administrative procedure is unavailable when
(despite what regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple dead end –
with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates.” 	Id.
Second, “an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking,
incapable of use.” 	Id. 	Finally, an administrative procedure is unavailable “when prison
administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination,
misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Id. at 644.
Defendants Hatley and King have presented evidence showing that there is a MCDC
grievance procedure, and that while Plaintiff submitted a kiosk entry with respect to his claim—
see (ECF No. 22-3, p. 3)—this entry does not, by itself, satisfy the MCDC grievance procedure.
Plaintiff, in turn, contends that it does. 	He presents no evidence suggesting that this grievance
procedure was somehow unavailable to him or incapable of use. 	See, e.g., Porter v. Sturm, 781
F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2015) (“[I]nmates are excused from exhausting remedies ‘when officials
have prevented prisoners from utilizing the procedures, or when officials themselves a have failed
to comply with the grievance procedures.’”) (quoting Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th
Cir. 2005)); see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 737-38 (2001) (concluding that
administrative remedies “are available” so long as “the administrative process has authority to take
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

17
some action in response to a complaint, [even if] not the remedial action an inmate demands”);
Perry v. Precythe, 121 F.4th 711, 714 (8th Cir. 2024) (concluding that administrative remedies
were not available to prisoner-plaintiff when plaintiff was unable to file a timely grievance because
he was in a medically induced coma). 	For the reasons described above, Plaintiff’s kiosk entry
plainly does not satisfy the MCDC grievance procedure. 	On this record, moreover, there is no
material fact dispute (indeed, there is no dispute at all) about whether the grievance procedure was
“available” to Plaintiff. 	Rather, the evidence shows that Plaintiff simply did not pursue that
procedure after receiving Defendant King’s response to his August 2, 2024, kiosk entry. 	Plaintiff,
therefore, failed to exhaust the MCDC administrative remedies available to him with respect to his
claim. 	Defendant Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), should therefore be
granted. 	Accordingly, this matter should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. 	See Porter, 781 F.3d at 452-53 (dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate where plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies).
CONCLUSION
In sum and for all the reasons outlined above, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Defendant
Hatley’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, (ECF
No. 	17), 	be 	GRANTED. 	This 	matter 	should 	therefore 	be 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>

18
district court.
STATUS OF REFERRAL: No longer referred.
DATED this 13th day of May 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04087-SOH Document 32 Filed 05/13/25 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:
<pageID>