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. 	CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5088
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
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 38) filed on
February 24, 2025, by the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge
for the Western District of Arkansas. She recommends that Separate Defendant Sheriff
Jay Cantrell’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative
Remedies (Doc. 26) be denied. In support of her recommendation, she explains that
though the Washington County Detention Center had an established inmate grievance
procedure on the books when Plaintiff Daniel David Fletcher was incarcerated, the
grievance procedure did not function in such a way as to permit Fletcher to effectively
grieve complaints about medical staff or medical treatment to his jailers. Instead, the
undisputed evidence shows that when Fletcher complained to the jail/Washington County
about his medical treatment (or lack thereof): (1) the grievance was reassigned back to
medical staff, or (2) jail staff advised him to submit the grievance in the form of a medical
request, or (3) jail staff responded to the grievance by parroting back the information that
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 42 Filed 04/28/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
medical staff provided. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge reasons that the grievance
procedure operated as a dead end to Fletcher: Though he asked his jailers to take
responsibility for his medical care, they merely passed the buck on his complaints about
his medical care and refused to address them head-on.
Sheriff Cantrell filed Objections (Doc. 40) to the R&R, pointing out that Fletcher
failed to identify him by name in any grievance regarding medical care. As a result, Sheriff
Cantrell maintains that it was impossible for him (or anyone at the jail) to investigate or
take corrective action on Fletcher’s claim that his civil rights were being violated by
medical staff through their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Having reviewed the entire case de novo, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge. 	“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.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 56 (1988). In other words, even though
Fletcher did not name Sheriff Cantrell in his written grievances, it is clear that Fletcher
repeatedly asked his jailers/Washington County for help in dealing with the medical staff’s
alleged deliberate indifference. Given the jail’s policy of reassigning medical grievances
back to medical staff and not investigating them in substance, the grievance process was,
in effect, unavailable to Fletcher with respect to medical complaints.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Objections (Doc. 40) are OVERRULED,
and the R&R (Doc. 38) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The Motion for Summary
Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 42 Filed 04/28/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
This case remains referred to the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 28 th day of April, 2025.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks____________________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05088-TLB Document 42 Filed 04/28/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>