Stiff v. Evans et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 19 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 09/16/2014. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

CRAIG STIFF,
ADC #111330
V.

PLAINTIFF
5:14CV00055 JTR

L. EVANS, Jailer,
Dermott City Jail, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER1

Plaintiff Craig Stiff is a prisoner in the Wrightsville Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction. He has filed this pro se action raising allegations that
arose in December of 2013, while he was a pretrial detainee in the Dermott City Jail.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights, as
protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and committed the state tort of negligence by refusing
to allow him to bathe and failing to provide him with adequate medical care for a rash.
Docs. 2 & 6.
Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of
exhaustion, and Plaintiff has responded.2 Docs. 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, & 25. For the
1

On May 12, 2014, the parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate
Judge. Doc. 17.
2

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to
the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v.

following reasons, the Motion is denied.
I. Discussion
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that: “No action shall be
brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility
until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a). To satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement, a prisoner must: (1) fully
and properly exhaust their administrative remedies as to each claim in the complaint;
and (2) complete the exhaustion process prior to filing an action in federal court.
Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884,
885 (8th Cir. 2000). Claims that are not properly exhausted, pursuant to the
incarcerating facility's rules, must be dismissed, without prejudice. Jones, 549 U.S.
at 218; Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006).
The Dermott City Jail has a Grievance Procedure requiring detainees to file
written grievances with the Jail Administrator. Doc. 19, Ex. 2. The Grievance
Procedure specifies that "any jailer will provide, upon request from a detainee, a

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of
material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once that has been done, the nonmoving party must present
specific facts demonstrating that there is a material dispute for trial. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011).
-2-

grievance form and a pencil." Id. at 1. However, detainees may also write their
grievances on any available paper. Id. If the detainee is dissatisfied with the Jail
Administrator's response, or does not receive a response to his grievance, he may file
an appeal to the Sheriff. Id.
Defendant Chief of Police Eric Evans has filed a sworn Affidavit stating that
the Grievance Procedure was explained to Plaintiff. Doc. 19, Ex. 1. Defendant Evans
also avers that Plaintiff never filed a grievance, or requested to file a grievance, during
his December 2013 detention at the Dermott City Jail. Id.
Plaintiff hotly contests those assertions. Doc. 25. Specifically, in his sworn
Statement, Plaintiff alleges that jailers denied his "repeated requests" for a grievance
form, pencil, paper or other means to file a grievance about his inability to bathe and
lack of medical care for a rash. Id. at 1.
It is well settled that a lack of proper exhaustion will be excused if the prisoner
demonstrates that prison officials hindered his efforts to complete exhaustion. Sergent
v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2003); Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305 F.3d 806,
808 (8thCir. 2002). In particular, the Eighth Circuit has recognized that a prisoner
cannot be held to the PLRA exhaustion requirement if prison officials refused to
provide him with grievance forms. Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir.
2001).
-3-

At this point, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Defendants prevented Plaintiff from exhausting his administrative remedies. Thus,
Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a) (explaining that summary judgment is appropriate only when there
is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law"); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007) (explaining that the
failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that must be pled
and proven by the defendants).
Neither party has requested a jury trial. If this case survives the filing of
dispositive motions on the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the Court will allow Defendants
to renew their exhaustion defense during the non-jury trial on the merits.
II. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2014.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-