Jarrett v. Hearyman et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Mr.Jarrett's claims against Defendants Rohder, Haydon, and Brink are DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. Jarrett's claims a gainst Defendant Hearyman are limited to Defendant Hearyman's failure to provide orthopedic shoes in February of 2015.The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Defendants Rohder, Haydon, and Brink as Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 10/7/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
TERRANCE JARRETT
ADC #129957
V.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-59 BD

MARTY HEARYMAN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

I.

Introduction:
Terrance Jarrett, an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) inmate, filed this

lawsuit pro se alleging that the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his
medical needs. (Docket entry #2)
Now pending is the Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. (#22) In
their motion, Defendants argue that Mr. Jarrett failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies against Defendants Sharyn Rohder, Elizabeth Haydon, and Shana Brink. In
addition, they contend that Mr. Jarrett’s claims against Defendant Marty Hearyman
should be limited to the claims raised in Mr. Jarrett’s only fully exhausted grievance, NC15-00208. Mr. Jarrett has not responded to the Defendants’ motion, and the time for
response has passed.
II.

Discussion:
A.

Standard

Summary judgment is granted to a party when the evidence, viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no real dispute about facts

important in the outcome of the case. FED.R.CIV.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
246, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). In this case, the evidence offered by the Defendants shows
that Mr. Jarrett did not use the prison’s administrative procedures to resolve his issues,
and Mr. Jarrett has not come forward with evidence to show that he did.
B.

Exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss any claim that was
not fully exhausted prior to the filing a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility
until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”); Woodford v. Ngo,
548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining the proper exhaustion of remedies “means using
all steps that the [prison] holds out, and doing so properly”); Johnson v. Jones, 340
F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding an inmate must exhaust all available
administrative remedies before filing suit, and “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at
the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”). Furthermore, an inmate’s subjective beliefs
regarding exhaustion are irrelevant in determining whether administrative procedures are
available. See Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000).
Defendants attach the declaration of Shelly Byers, the ADC Medical Grievance
Coordinator, to their motion. (#24-1) Ms. Byers testifies that Mr. Jarrett fully exhausted

2

only one grievance from 2005 through May 6, 2015, the date that he filed his complaint,
NC-15-00208. (Id. at p.2) In that grievance Mr. Jarrett complains that Defendant
Hearyman refused to provide him orthopedic shoes in February of 2015. (Id. at p.23)
Mr. Jarrett has not come forward with any evidence to show that he fully
exhausted his claims against Defendants Rohder, Haydon, or Brink. In addition, he has
not presented any evidence showing that he fully exhausted any claim against Defendant
Hearyman, other than his claim that Defendant Hearyman failed to provide him
orthopedic shoes in February of 2015. As a result, his claims against Defendants Rohder,
Haydon, and Brink must be dismissed, without prejudice. In addition, Mr. Jarrett may
proceed only on the claim he raised against Defendant Hearyman in his one fully
exhausted grievance.
III.

Conclusion:
The Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (#22) is GRANTED. Mr.

Jarrett’s claims against Defendants Rohder, Haydon, and Brink are DISMISSED, without
prejudice, based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. Jarrett’s claims
against Defendant Hearyman are limited to Defendant Hearyman’s failure to provide
orthopedic shoes in February of 2015.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Defendants Rohder, Haydon, and
Brink as Defendants.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of October, 2015.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4