Hill v. Higgins et al

Filing 18

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending 14 Defendant Higgins' motion for summary judgment be granted; Mr. Hill's claims be dismissed, without prejudice; and the Clerk of the Court be instructed to close this case, if Chief Judge Baker adopts the 09/16/2024 Partial Recommended Disposition 4 . Objections due within 14 days of the date of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin on 01/08/2025. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
KENDRICKS HILL
#215406

V.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 4:24-cv-00777-KGB-ERE

ERIC S. HIGGINS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I.

Procedures for Filing Objections:
This Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District Judge

Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the
factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this
Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not
file objections, Chief Judge Baker can adopt this Recommendation without
independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may
waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
II.

Background:
Pro se plaintiff Kendricks Hill, an inmate at the Pulaski County Regional

Detention Facility (“Detention Facility”), filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Doc. 2. Mr. Hill’s complaint alleges that the conditions of his confinement are
unconstitutional. He explains that, as a result of his continuous exposure to mold, he

has suffered from breathing problems. He sues Pulaski County Sheriff Higgins and
the Detention Facility in both their individual and official capacities seeking
monetary damages. I previously recommended that Mr. Hill’s official capacity claims
for monetary damages against Defendant Higgins and his claims against the
Detention Facility be dismissed based on his failure to state a plausible constitutional
claim for relief. Doc. 4. That recommendation remains pending.
Defendant Higgins has now filed a motion for summary judgment, brief in
support, and statement of facts, arguing that Mr. Hill failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as to his claims against him before filing this lawsuit.
Docs.14, 15, 16. Mr. Hill has not responded to Defendant Higgins’ motion and the
time for doing so has passed. Doc. 17. The motion is now ripe for review.
For the reasons stated below, Defendant Higgins’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 14) should be GRANTED.
III.

Discussion:
A.

The PLRA Makes Exhaustion Mandatory

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires the Court to dismiss any
claim raised that was not fully exhausted before 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.
2

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”).
Importantly, “it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define
the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). To
resolve the exhaustion question, the Court must determine: (1) what administrative
remedies the Detention Facility made available to inmates to bring and resolve
claims; and (2) whether Mr. Hill fully and properly complied with available
administrative remedies.
B.

Detention Facility’s Grievance Procedure

According to the Detention Facility’s inmate grievance procedure, inmates are
“permitted to file grievances/appeals and will be assured of written responses from
facility officials in a timely and orderly manner without fear of reprisal or prejudice.”
Doc. 16-4 at 1. After an incident, an inmate first should attempt to resolve problems
or complaints verbally through the unit deputy. Id. at 4. If the issue is not resolved,
an inmate may file a written grievance on the grievance form. Id.
Detention Facility policy defines a grievance as:
[a] written complaint by an Inmate on the Inmate’s own behalf . . .
regarding . . . [a]ctions taken by staff or other inmates that have the
3

effect of depriving the inmate of a right, service, or privilege[;]
[a]llegations of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment by staff or other
inmates; [a]ny other matter the inmates believes to be illegal, a violation
of department rules and regulations, or unconstitutional treatment or
condition.
Id. at 1-2. The policy states that copies of grievance forms are available in each unit.
Id. at 3. Completed grievances are to be placed in locked grievance boxes. Id.
Grievances must be filed within fiftenn days “after the grievance occurrence with
the Grievance Officer or designee.” Id. at 4. Inmates should state the problem in the
grievance “as briefly and clearly as possible” and a grievance should address only
one problem. Id. Inmates “shall” receive a written response to their grievance within
ten working days of receipt. Id. at 6. Responses must “[s]tate the reason for the
decision in clear, well-reasoned terms.” Id. If an inmate is not satisfied with the
written response, the inmate may appeal within ten working days. Id. at 7. Written
responses to appeals are issued within five working days. Id. at 7. The written
response “is the final level of the appeal process.” Id.
C.

Mr. Hill’s Grievance History

Defendant Higgins submits the affidavit of Detention Facility Sergeant James
Hill. Doc. 16-1. Sergeant Hill states that Mr. Hill submitted two grievances regarding
the claims raised in this lawsuit. Id. at 1-2.
In an August 16, 2024 grievance, Mr. Hill stated he could not breath because
of the mold in the barracks and he complained of fire hazards. Doc. 16-3 at 1.
4

On August 18, 2024, Deputy Michael Hagerty responded, “Not sure what you
are asking.” Id.
On August 19, 2024, Mr. Hill submitted a grievance stating, “[O]n August 16
2024, I wrote [a] grievance on mold . . . I was on the floor my nose was bleeding
from all the mold.” Id. at 3. He also complained of breathing problems and red eyes.
On August 27, 2024, Deputy Ignacio Madrigal responded by stating, “Inmate
Hill, please submit a Sick Call. In addition, please speak with your unit deputy so
they may submit a maintenance request.” Id.
Defendant Higgins argues that Mr. Hill did not fully exhaust the grievance
process for the claims raised in this lawsuit because Mr. Hill did not complete the
appeal process with regard to either of these grievances. I agree.
Mr. Hill has failed to explain why he did not appeal any of the grievance
responses mentioned above, and he does not claim that the Detention Facility’s
grievance procedure was unavailable to him.
On this record, there is no genuine issue of material fact on the threshold
question of whether Mr. Hill fully exhausted his pending claims by asserting them
to the final levels of the Detention Facility’s process before bringing this lawsuit. As
a result, Defendant Higgins is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

5

IV.

Conclusion:
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1.

Defendant Higgins’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) be

GRANTED.
2.

Mr. Hill’s claims should be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies.
3.

The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close this case.1

DATED 8th January 2025.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

The case should be closed only if Chief Judge Baker adopts the September 16, 2024
Partial Recommended Disposition (Doc. 4).
6