Fletcher v. Karas Correctional Health Services (KCH) et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
DANIEL DAVID FLETCHER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:24-cv-05088-TLB-CDC
KARAS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES
(KCH), Medical Care Provider, Washington County
Detention Center (WCDC); SHERIFF JAY
CANTRELL, Washington County, Arkansas;
DUSTIN SANDERS, KCH Paramedic; JOHN
KARAS, KCH; KELLEY HINLEY, KCH; JORDAN
PREVENAS, KCH Paramedic; STEPHANIE LEWIE,
KCH; and JAKE SMOTHER, KCH, Paramedic 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Daniel D. Fletcher (“Fletcher”), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. 	Fletcher proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	Fletcher is incarcerated in the
Washington County Detention Center (“WCDC”) and contends he is being denied adequate
medical care. 	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. 	Before the undesigned is a Motion for
Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion filed by Separate Defendant Sheriff Cantrell.
(ECF Nos. 26-28). 	Fletcher has responded (ECF No. 36) and the Motion is ready for decision.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Fletcher filed this case on April 15, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1). 	The Complaint was determined
to be deficient because Fletcher had failed to state how each named Defendant had personally
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
violated his federal constitutional rights. 	(ECF No. 3). 	An Amended Complaint was ordered and
timely filed on April 25, 2024. 	(ECF No. 6). 	The Amended Complaint is the operative pleading
in this case. 	Id.
Fletcher alleges that on February 16, 2024, he slipped and fell in the shower causing a
“bone” to “stick” through his gum and “part of the plate” he has in his jaw to be exposed. 	(ECF
No. 6 at 6). 	Fletcher maintains he has been denied adequate medical treatment since his fall. 	Id.
Fletcher alleges Defendants Hinley, Sanders, Prevenas, and Smother have all continually told him
there is nothing wrong. 	Id. at 7. 	Fletcher says Defendant Lewie put a blood pressure cuff on an
IV to make the antibiotics run faster resulting in him become sick and his hand to turn black. 	Id.
Fletcher alleges all Defendants have caused him to suffer needlessly by not providing the
proper medical care. 	(ECF No. 6 at 7). 	Fletcher indicates he had to have his family call the
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (“UAMS”) to get anything done to help him. 	Id.
Further, he alleges Defendant Cantrell was informed of the situation and did nothing to help. 	Id.
Fletcher has sued Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. 	Id.
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
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
genuine issue of material fact exists.” 	Nat. Bank of Comm. 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).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Defendant Cantrell maintains he is entitled to summary judgment because Fletcher failed
to submit any complaints or grievances naming him as is required by the WCDC grievance
procedure. 	In response, Fletcher maintains the exhibits establish insurmountable proof that he did
exhaust the WCDC grievance procedure. 	(ECF No. 36 at 1). 	Fletcher also maintains the
grievances are merely sent to the medical staff he is complaining about without any investigation
by an unbiased officer or medical administrator. 	Id.
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
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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).
B. The WCDC Grievance Procedure
The WCDC has an inmate grievance procedure. 	(ECF No. 28-4 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.
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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. 28-4 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.
Any detainee who submits a grievance to the duty supervisor “shall receive a timely
response following the investigation of the grievance, to include findings and actions taken.”
(ECF No. 28-4 at 2). 	Following the response, “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
cellblock.” 	Id. 	However, no appeal will be considered on, among other things, medical
decisions, treatment, or testing, dietary concerns, or disciplinary matters. 	Id.
C. Application
Fletcher submitted multiple grievances regarding the injury to his mouth/jaw. 	(ECF No.
28-3). 	On March 8, 2024, he grieved that he had been waiting for a month for medical to do
something 	about 	his 	jaw. 	Id. 	at 	1. 	Fletcher 	indicated 	he 	had 	received 	contradictory
communications some indicating there was nothing wrong with his jaw and others saying they
were trying to get a consult or x-rays. 	Id. 	He maintained there was clearly a bone sticking
through his gum and he also had screws stabbing him through his skin. 	Id. 	Fletcher asked for
help, noting that even Judge Casey Jones had instructed the prosecutors to make sure he received
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
medical help. 	Id. 	This grievance was reassigned to medical services. 	Id. 	Defendant Prevenas
responded that medical was currently in the process of scheduling a consult with a specialist. 	Id.
On March 13, 2024, Fletcher submitted a grievance about responses he had received from
Defendant Smother to his medical requests.0F
1 	(ECF No. 28-3 at 2). 	Fletcher indicated Defendant
Smother had done a “bullshit” job and told him straight lies. 	Id. 	Fletcher asked that Defendant
Smother not respond to any more of his medical requests. 	Id. 	This grievance was reassigned to
medical and responded to by a KCH employee, Jon Beckham (“Beckham”). 	Id. 	After berating
Fletcher for his “uncalled” for language, reporting that Defendant Smother was a licensed
professional whose job included responding to kiosk messages and providing “thorough patient
assessments,” Beckham stated Fletcher was on provider call. 	Id.
On March 23, 2024, Fletcher submitted a grievance about his medical visit the previous
day. 	(ECF No. 28-3 at 3). 	Fletcher indicated Defendant Smother had looked at his open wound
and first stated “it was my jaw bone then stated that all he could see was hair then took a pic and
when [I] pointed the bone out to him on the pic he then stated that multiple peop[l]e had seen it
and they don’t know what it is.” 	Id. 	Fletcher stated he had submitted multiple medical requests
and grievances and KCH and the Washington County jail had done nothing about resolving the
problem. 	Id. 	Fletcher stated his doctors at UAMS believed he should have been sent to the
emergency room. 	Id. 	The grievance was reassigned to medical services. 	Id. 	Fletcher was
1 None of the grievances submitted were responded to by Defendant Smother. 	As they were not
relevant to this Motion, Fletcher’s medical requests were not submitted.
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
informed that “deputies on the grievance system have nothing to do with your medical requests.
You must submit this under the medical services tab in order to resolve this issue.” 	Id.
Fletcher submitted a second grievance on March 23, 2024. 	(ECF No. 28-3 at 5). 	Fletcher
reported that when Defendant Sanders looked at the wound he said there “was nothing sticking out
but the skin was starting to grow back over it.” 	Id. 	Fletcher questioned how there could be
nothing sticking out yet the skin be starting to grow over it. 	Id. 	Fletcher asked that he be sent to
the emergency room or to another doctor. 	Id. 	He complained that the pain was excruciating.
Id. 	The grievance was closed by detention personnel and Fletcher advised to submit it under “the
medical services tab so the medical staff can see and fulfill the request.” 	Id.
On March 30, 2024, Fletcher wrote that he had a “bone exposed” through his skin for a
month. 	(ECF No. 28-3 at 6). 	He stated that medical staff would admit seeing it but in the next
breath would say they did not see it. 	Id. 	Fletcher reported the condition was very painful and
pleaded with the jail to do something to take him to the emergency room since medical staff merely
wanted to give him a Band-Aid which was not solving the problem. 	Id. 	Detention personnel
assigned the grievance to medical services. 	Id. 	Defendant Prevenas responded that the
grievance had been forwarded to the provider. 	Id.
Fletcher submitted a grievance on March 31, 2024, to the attention of the WCDC. 	(ECF
No. 28-3 at 7). 	Fletcher stated he had shown several floor officers that he had a bone exposed
through a hole in his chin. 	Id. 	Fletcher complained that medical had refused to do anything
except offer him a Band-Aid. 	Id. 	Because medical was refusing to do anything, Fletcher stated
it was Washington County’s responsibility to ensure he received treatment for his serious medical
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
condition. 	Id. 	He asked Washington County to step up and handle the medical issue. 	Id. 	On
April 1, 2024, Fletcher received a response from Sergeant Jerry Workman (“Workman”) who said
medical informed him “they have examined the area you are talking about and determined it is not
exposed bone. 	[T]hey have completed X-rays and an evaluation was completed at UAMS on the
issue.” 	Id.
Fletcher submitted a second grievance on March 31, 2024. 	(ECF No. 28-3 at 8). 	He
indicated this grievance was against the Washington County jail for forwarding his grievances
“against medical to medical.” 	Id. 	Fletcher asserted that the detention center was ultimately
responsible for his medical care. 	Id. 	He reported medical had done nothing about his exposed
bone and refused to even acknowledge there was an issue. 	Id. 	He said if the detention center
would not take him to the emergency room, he needed to be cited out so he could go himself. 	Id.
On April 1st, Workman responded: “Medical has notified me that they have taken X-ray and ha[ve]
taken you to UAMS for evaluation on this issue. 	[W]e have medical staff for a reason. 	I am not
a Medical professional.” 	Id.
On April 1, 2024, Fletcher submitted a grievance stating he had not been taken to UAMS
or anywhere for evaluation. 	(ECF No. 28-3 at 9). 	Fletcher asserted that Washington County
needed to do something. 	Id. 	He challenged the reader to come and look at his condition if he
was not believed. 	Id. 	Workman responded the same day indicating he had apparently misheard
medical. 	Id. 	Workman indicated Fletcher was scheduled to go to UAMS for evaluation. 	Id.
Workman apologized for the confusion and noted he had spoken to Fletcher in person about this
as well. 	Id.
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Fletcher filed this lawsuit on April 15, 2024. (ECF No. 1). 	The remaining grievances
submitted into the record by Defendants are dated after April 15th. 	(ECF No. 28-3 at 10-11).
The grievance procedure, as noted above, requires the grievance contents to “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.” 	(ECF No. 28-4 at 2). 	Because his name appears nowhere in
Fletcher’s 	grievances, 	Defendant 	Cantrell 	maintains 	Fletcher 	has 	failed 	to 	exhaust 	his
administrative grievances.
Initially, the Court must determine what administrative remedies were available to
Fletcher. 	The WCDC had a written grievance procedure in place at the relevant time. 	As can be
seen from Fletcher’s grievance history, he both knew about the procedure and was able to submit
grievances via the kiosk. 	However, the Court questions whether the grievance procedure can be
considered an “available” remedy with respect to medical issues. 	As demonstrated through
Fletcher’s grievances, any grievances regarding medical staff or the lack of medical treatment are
looped directly back to medical staff.
In Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001), the Supreme Court determined available meant
“capable of use for the accomplishment of a purpose” and that which “is accessible or may be
obtained.” 	Id. at 737-38 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 	In Ross v. Blake, 578
U.S. 632 (2016), the Supreme Court rejected a judge made or extra-textual exception to the
exhaustion requirement applicable when “special circumstances” were present. 	Id. at 635. 	In
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
doing so, the Supreme Court noted that the PLRA had a “built-in exception to the exhaustion
requirement: 	A prisoner need not exhaust remedies if they are not ‘available.’” 	Id. at 635-36.
The Ross Court discussed three circumstances in which an administrative procedure
“although officially on the books, is not capable of use to obtain relief.” 	Ross, 578 U.S. at 643.
First, when the administrative procedure “operates as a simple dead end – with officers unable or
consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates.” 	Id. 	The Supreme Court stated
“[s]uppose, for example, that a prison handbook directs inmates to submit their grievances to a
particular administrative office – but in practice that office disclaims the capacity to consider those
petitions.” 	Id. 	It concluded that under those circumstances the procedure was not “’capable of
use’ for the pertinent purpose.” 	Id. 	Second, when the “administrative scheme [is] so opaque that
it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use. 	In this situation, some mechanism exists to
provide relief, but no ordinary prisoner can discern or navigate it.” 	Id. at 643-44. 	Third, “when
prison administrators’ thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through
machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” 	Id. at 644.
Here, the grievance procedure falls within the first exception discussed in Ross. 	While
officially on the books, the WCDC grievance procedure operates as a simple dead end with respect
to medical complaints. 	Detention staff either reassigned Fletcher’s grievances to medical staff,
advised him to submit his “grievances” as a medical request, or simply parroted back information
provided by the medical staff. 	The grievance procedure effectively operated as a dead end and
therefore was not available to Fletcher.
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
Alternatively, the Court believes Fletcher exhausted the grievance procedure with respect
to his medical treatment. 	Admittedly, Fletcher’s medical grievances did not name Defendant
Cantrell; 	however, 	Fletcher 	did 	name 	Washington 	County. 	Fletcher 	was 	insistent 	that
Washington County, the detention center, or the jail take responsibility for his medical care. 	See
White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064, 1075 (8th Cir. 2017) (An official capacity claim against an
individual is a claim against the government entity); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 56 (1988)
(“Contracting out prison medical care does not relieve the [county] of its constitutional duty to
provide adequate medical treatment to those in its custody, and it does not deprive the [county]’s
prisoners of the means to vindicate their Eighth Amendment rights.”).
IV. 	CONCLUSON
For the reasons stated, it is recommended that the Defendant Cantrell’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 26-28) be DENIED.
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
district court.
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
Status of the Referral: 	This case should remain referred for all matters not
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
RECOMMENDED this 24th day of February 2025.
____________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 38 Filed 02/24/25 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>