Swift v. Doe et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying #4 Motion for Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore on 2/5/2024. (jak)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
LAWRENCE J. SWIFT
ADC #111527
V.

PLAINTIFF
No. 3:23-CV-00253-DPM-BBM

DOE, ADC, Grimes Unit and Staff; and
CLINT BAKER, Captain, Grimes Unit, ADC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff Lawrence J. Swift, a prisoner in the Grimes Unit
of the Arkansas Division of Correction, filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging that Defendant Clint Baker falsely charged him with a disciplinary for
possessing a cellphone. (Doc. 1 at 2). Since that time, Swift filed an Amended Complaint
and two Affidavits, one of which was docketed as a Motion for Order. (Docs. 4–5, 7).
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) will be screened by separate order, in due course.
In his Motion for Order (Doc. 4), Swift claims that, since initiating this suit on
December 18, 2023, he has been subjected to retaliation. (Doc. 4). In particular, he claims
that Defendant Baker and non-Defendant Lieutenant Dunagan confiscated his legal mail
and claimed that it tested positive for drugs. Id. He alleges that he fears for his life and asks
that the Court contact the Grimes Unit Warden to transfer him to a different unit. Id.
To the extent Swift seeks to bring these new claims in the instant lawsuit, the request
must be and is DENIED. It is well settled that a prisoner must fully exhaust his
administrative remedies as to each claim prior to commencing his lawsuit in federal court.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v.
Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000). The new claims Swift wishes to add occurred
after he commenced this action on December 18, 2023. Thus, it would be futile to allow
Swift to pursue his new, unexhausted claims in this lawsuit. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that a court may deny a plaintiff’s motion
to amend the complaint when such amendment would be futile).
If Swift wishes to pursue his new claims of retaliation, he must: (1) fully and
properly exhaust his administrative remedies within the prison system;1 and (2) file a new
§ 1983 action raising those claims.
Accordingly, Swift’s Motion for Order (Doc. 4) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2024.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

Swift alleges that he filed an “Emergency Grievance” the same day he signed the Motion for
Order. (Doc. 4). Thus, it is clear that he did not wait for a response to his grievance or pursue his retaliation
claim through the remaining steps of the ADC’s grievance procedure before filing his Motion.

2