Ralston v. Cantrell

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JONATHAN WAYNE RALSTON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:24-cv-05076
SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL, Washington
County, Arkansas; DR. ROBERT KARAS,
Karas Correctional Health (KCH); JORDAN
PREVERAS, KCH; JACOB SMOTHERS,
KCH; and NURSE KELLY HINELY, KCH 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Jonathan W. Ralston (“Ralston”), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. 	Ralston proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP). 	Ralston is incarcerated in the
Washington County Detention Center (WCDC). 	While housed at the WCDC, Ralston maintains
his constitutional rights were violated when he fell on two separate occasions due to water leaking
from toilets. 	He further contends he was denied adequate medical care for his injuries.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L.
Brooks, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of
making this Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of
exhaustion (ECF Nos. 16-18) filed by Separate Defendant Cantrell. 	Ralston has responded, and
Defendant Cantrell filed a reply brief and supplement to the Motion. 	(ECF Nos. 26, 27). 	The
Motion is ready for decision.
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
In Claim One of the Amended Complaint, Ralston alleges that on April 5, 2023, he fell
and injured his right hand. 	(ECF No. 30 at 6).0F
1 	Ralston maintains the fall was due to the toilets
leaking water onto the floor. 	Id. 	Before his fall, Ralston maintains he had submitted several
requests for the jail to investigate and repair this problem. Id. Ralston asserts he is “put at risk
everyday of getting sick or hurt [due] to the overpopulation or [due] to the toilets leaking water
onto the floor.” 	Id. 	Ralston indicates his hand is still hurting him as of October 31, 2024, when
he filed his Amended Complaint. 	Id. at 7.
Ralston further alleges that on March 6, 2024, he fell again due to toilets leaking in the
pod. (ECF No. 30 at 7). Ralston complains of overpopulation, having to sleep on the floor on a 3-
inch-thick mat, leaking toilets, mold, the leaking walls, the ventilation system needing cleaning,
not getting outside exercise, and of the sanitary conditions. 	Id. 	Ralston also indicated that in the
lock-down cells there is no way to get help in an emergency other than kicking the door which
could cause injury to his foot. Id. 	Ralston sued the Defendants in both their individual and official
capacities. 	Id. at 6.
In Claim Two, Ralston alleges a denial of medical care claim against Dr. Karas and the
other Karas Correctional Health (KCH) staff. 	(ECF No. 30 at 8). 	The claim concerns the
1 After the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, Ralston filed an Amended Complaint
to substitute Dr. Robert Karas in the place of John Karas. 	(ECF No. 30). 	The Amended
Complaint became the operative pleading. 	See e.g., In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064,
1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (amended complaint ordinarily supersedes original complaint and renders it
without legal effect).
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
medical care he received following both falls. 	Id. at 9. 	Additionally, Ralston asserts he is not
receiving proper mental health treatment for his bi-polar disorder or for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). 	Id. at 10.
II. 	APPLICABLE STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record "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).
"Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with
the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a
genuine issue of material fact exists.” 	Nat’l. Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d
602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).
The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts." 	Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. 	"They must show there is sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." 	Nat’l. Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). 	"A case founded on speculation or suspicion
is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment." 	Id. (citing, Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d
621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). 	“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not
adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” 	Scott
v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
III. 	DISCUSSION
Defendant Cantrell maintains he is entitled to summary judgment. 	First, Ralston
submitted no grievances regarding the April 5, 2023, fall. 	Second, Ralston failed to submit a
timely grievance regarding the March 6, 2024, fall. 	Third, even if the untimely grievance
regarding the March 6, 2024, fall is considered, Ralston failed complete the grievance process by
filing an appeal.
A. The Exhaustion Requirement
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides: “[n]o 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.” 	Exhaustion is mandatory. 	Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). 	In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Supreme Court
concluded 	“to 	properly 	exhaust 	administrative 	remedies 	prisoners 	must 	complete 	the
administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.” 	Id. at 218
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 	The Court stated that the “level of detail necessary
in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to system and claim
to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper
exhaustion.” 	Id. 	A prisoner’s remedies are exhausted “when [the] inmate pursues the prison
grievance process to its final stage and receives an adverse decision on the merits.” 	Hammett v.
Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012).
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
B. The WCDC Grievance Procedure
The WCDC has an inmate grievance procedure. 	(ECF No. 18-4 at 1-2). 	Inmates are
advised that grievances may be filed “whenever the detainee believes they have been subjected to
abuse, harassment, an abridgment of civil rights, or a denial of privileges specified in the Detainee
Handbook.” 	Id. at 1. 	Grievances are to be made within ten days of the alleged incident “unless
there is good cause for a reasonable delay.” 	Id. at 2. 	Grievances filed more than thirty days after
an alleged incident will not be considered. 	Id. 	Grievances are to be submitted via the kiosk
located in the cell block. 	Id. 	The grievance “shall state fully the time, date, location and names
of those detention officers and/or staff members involved and pertinent details of the incident,
including the names of any witnesses and how the incident personally affected the detainee.” 	Id.
The supervisor must notify the jail administrator or his designee “[i]f the grievance
constitutes a prohibited act by an officer or staff member, a criminal act, or a violation of the
detainee’s civil rights.” 	(ECF No. 18-4 at 2). 	If the grievance “constitutes an[] abridgement of
the detainee’s privileges as specified in the Detainee Handbook, the Jail Administrator or their
designee may appoint an officer unconnected with the incident to investigate the grievance and
make a report of findings and recommendations.” 	Id. 	The duty supervisor is to provide “a timely
response following the investigation of the grievance, to include findings and actions taken.” 	Id.
“Following the response referenced above, a detainee may appeal the response within 5 days, by
indicating his or her desire for further review of the response on the kiosk provided in the cell
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
block.” 	Id. 	However, no appeal will be considered on, among other things, medical decisions,
treatment, or testing, dietary concerns, or disciplinary matters. 	Id.
C. Application
With the supplemental affidavit of Corporal Mulvaney, Ralston’s grievances between
April 2, 2023, and July 1, 2023, were provided. 	(ECF Nos. 27-1 & 27-2). 	On April 2, 2023,
Ralston submitted a grievance regarding water standing around the toilets. 	(ECF No. 27-2 at 1).
Corporal Lunsford replied that he had spoken with Corporal Partain who would have an officer
come and check into it. 	Id. 	However, Ralston submitted no grievances regarding his April 5,
2023, fall. 	Id. 	Ralston clearly knew how to submit grievances on the kiosk because he did so
both before and after the fall. 	Defendant Cantrell is entitled to summary judgment on the April
5, 2023, fall claim based on Ralston’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
The question becomes more difficult with respect to the March 6, 2024, fall. 	While
Ralston submitted a medical request about the fall on March 7th, he did not submit a grievance
about his fall in the bathroom until March 22nd. 	(ECF No. 18-3 at 54 & 7). 	The grievance was
not rejected as untimely; instead, it was marked “accepted” by Sergeant Pineda. 	Id. at 7.
Sergeant Pineada responded: “There will be a deputy coming to talk to you.” 	Id. 	No further
response is made. 	Id. 	If any further response was made at any point, it is not part of the record.
Nothing in the record indicates the results of “investigation” in the form of the deputy going to
speak with Ralston. 	No further written response of any kind was given.
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
The grievance policy specifically requires the duty supervisor to submit a timely response
after investigation to indicate findings and actions taken. 	This was not done and thus, Ralston
had nothing from which to appeal.
On March 22, 2023, Ralston also put in a request about the standing water in the bathroom
and his fall. 	(ECF No. 18-3 at 23). 	In response, Corporal Mulvaney indicated he believed
Sergeant Pineada had addressed this in a separate “request/grievance.” 	Id. 	Corporal Mulvaney
then asked for the day, time, and area where Ralston claimed he fell. 	Id. 	Ralston provided the
requested information. 	Id. 	On March 25, 2024, Corporal Mulvaney asked if the fall occurred in
Ralston’s current housing unit – B2. 	Id. 	The following day, Ralston marked the request as
closed. 	Id. 	Ralston then submitted a new requesting ask for the toilets to be fixed “before
someone or myself gets hurt again.” 	Id. at 25. 	On March 27, 2024, Lieutenant Atchley
responded, asking what was wrong with the toilets. 	Id. 	Ralston replied there was water standing
in the floor around them. 	Id. 	On March 28, 2024, Corporal Mulvaney stated he “had officers
looking into this situation.” 	Id. 	Again, there is no further response indicating the results of the
investigation.
On March 23, 2024, Ralston submitted a legal services request. 	(ECF No. 18-3 at 48).
He indicated that he had three § 1983 forms that needed to be completed by Corporal Mulvaney.
Id. 	On March 25th, Corporal Mulvaney advised Ralston to give the forms to a floor officer and
make sure to instruct the officer to make sure Corporal Mulvaney got them. 	Id. 	Corporal
Mulvaney then said: “[Y]ou mentioned a 2nd fall. 	I need all the information I can get from you
regarding these issues. 	I know you provide me with at least one already. 	Dates, Times, and
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
areas, and housing unit?” 	Id. 	Ralston supplied the requested information. 	Id. 	On March 26th,
Corporal Mulvaney advised Ralston that he had never submitted “a request or grievance” regarding
the first fall. 	Id. at 49. 	Corporal Mulvaney also indicated there would no longer be any video of
April 5, 2023, fall. 	Id. 	He indicated he would “go and try and find the 2nd incident you are
claiming happened just recently; 3-6-24.” 	Id. 	On March 26th, an officer commented that the
video had been found. 	Id. at 50. 	He stated: “Ralston was cleaning the bathroom/shower area
with a mop and squeegee when he slipped and fell. During this time it was also found he purposely
dumped the mop bucket in this area while cleaning.” Nothing further appears in the record.
Defendant Cantrell is not entitled to summary judgment on the claim arising from the fall
on March 6, 2024. 	Ralston was not advised of the results of the investigation of the grievance or
his request. 	Ralston could not appeal from a response that did not exist.
IV. 	CONCLUSON
For these reasons, it is recommended that the Defendant Cantrell’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF Nos. 16-18) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 	Specifically,
• 	The Motion should be granted with respect to Ralston’s claim stemming from his
fall on April 5, 2023.
• 	The Motion should be denied with respect to Ralston’s claim stemming from his
fall on March 6, 2024.
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
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
Status of the Referral: 	This case should remain referred for all matters not
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
RECOMMENDED this 25th day of November 2024.
____________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 36 Filed 11/25/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>