Stockton v. Wellpath LLC et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying 35 Mr. Stockton's motion for reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin on 1/06/2025. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
JOSHUA MATTHEW STOCKTON
ADC #169885
V.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 4:24-cv-00680-KGB-ERE

WELLPATH LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

On August 9, 2024, pro se plaintiff Joshua Matthew Stockton, an Arkansas
Division of Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this lawsuit alleging that the named
Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by failing to
provide him pain medication. On November 20, 2024, Mr. Stockton moved to amend
his complaint to add new claims against new party Defendants. Doc. 27. On
December 13, 2024, the Court denied Mr. Stockton’s motion. Mr. Stockton has now
moved for the Court to reconsider its December 13, 2024 Order denying his motion
to amend. For the following reasons, the Court denies Mr. Stockton’s motion for
reconsideration.
Mr. Stockton’s proposed amended complaint seeks to add Terri Grigsby
Brown, Deshona Collins, and Dr. William Scott as party Defendants. He alleges that,
after he filed this lawsuit: (1) Ms. Grigsby Brown and Ms. Collins failed to follow
the ADC grievance procedure by inappropriately responding to his grievance

appeals; (2) Dr. Scott and Defendant Daniel deliberately omitted certain documents
from his medical records; and (3) on September 8, 2024, Defendant Daniel failed to
conduct an adequate medical examination of Mr. Stockton in retaliation for Mr.
Stockton’s use of the grievance procedure. In denying his motion to amend, the
Court explained that allowing Mr. Stockton to include such claims would be futile
because Mr. Stockton could not have exhausted his administrative remedies with
regard to those claims before filing this lawsuit as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. In addition, the Court explained that Mr. Stockton’s proposed claims
were unrelated to the claims pending in this case and that the Court would not allow
him to join unrelated claims against multiple defendants in a single lawsuit.
In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Stockton argues that: (1) his claims
against Defendant Daniels raised in his proposed amended complaint are related to
the claims raised in this lawsuit; and (2) some courts have allowed inmates to pursue
claims that occurred after a lawsuit was filed, if the prisoner fully exhausted those
claims before filing an amended complaint.
While the claims against Defendant Daniels in his proposed amended
complaint may be related to the claims raised in his original complaint, all of the
claims that Mr. Stockton seeks to raise in his proposed amended complaint occurred
after this lawsuit was filed. While some courts have allowed prisoners to include
such claims in a pending lawsuit, that has not been the practice in this Court, nor has
2

the Eighth Circuit specifically allowed inmates to do so. See Tyler v. Kelley, 2018
WL 1528784, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 2, 2018) (grievance exhausted after the lawsuit
was commenced but before amended complaint was filed was not proper
exhaustion); Kelley v. Davis, 2022 WL 18359331, at n. 8 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 18, 2022)
(same); Abdulaziz/Askew v. Maples, 2013 WL 6579151, at *5 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 13,
2013) (same); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (“[u]nder the
plain language of section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies
before filing suit in federal court” and dismissal is mandatory if “exhaustion was not
completed at the time of filing”); Harris v. Kemna, 2005 WL 3159569 (8th Cir. Nov.
29. 2005) (unpublished opinion) (affirming dismissal when exhaustion was not
completed at the time of filing).
As a result, allowing Mr. Stockton to pursue the claims raised in his proposed
amended complaint would be futile.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Mr. Stockton’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 35) is DENIED.
DATED 6 January 2025.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3