Russell v. Beckstrom et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, 1) granting 4 MOTION to Dismiss by Gary Beckstrom 2) pla Jason Russell's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies 3) DENIED AS MOOT MOTION for Hearing by Jason Russell 4) Action is dismissed from docket of the court and 5) Judgment shall be entered in favor of dfts.. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 9/28/11.(SMT)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION at ASHLAND
)
)
) Civil Action No. O:II-CV-054-HRW
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
)
and
)
ORDER
)
)
JASON RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,
V.
GARY BECKSTROM, Warden,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
**
**
**
**
**
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jason Russell, an inmate at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional
Complex ("EKCC") in West Liberty, Kentucky, by counsel, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the named defendants, Gary Beckstrom,
Warden at EKCC, and five other defendants identified in the Complaint only as "John
Does 1-5," have failed to provide him with Seroquel, a specific medication he alleges
is required to control his disruptive and violent behavior and outbursts, in violation
of his Eighth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff also asserts state
law claims of negligence, gross negligence, outrageous conduct, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring that the Defendants be ordered to
medicate him with Seroquel, in accordance with doctor's orders.! Plaintiffalso seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, his
costs, and attorneys' fees.
This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant Gary Beckstrom,
Warden, to dismiss for Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Having considered Defendant's fully-briefed motion, the Court concludes, for the
reasons stated below, that said motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies has merit. This case will be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiffs
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. For this reason, Plaintiffs motion for
a status conference and/or a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss will be denied
as moot.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, ("PLRA") 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires
state and federal prisoners to exhaust all available administrative remedies before
bringing an action with respect to prison conditions under federal law. The Supreme
Plaintiff states that while he was incarcerated at the Kentucky Correctional
Psychiatric Center ("KCPC") and under the care of Dr. Edwin O. Walker at KCPC,
Dr. Walker determined that Seroquel was effective in controlling his violent and
disruptive behavior.
I
2
Court ofthe United States has twice held that the statute means precisely what it says.
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525
(2002). Additionally, in Woodfordv. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,90-91 (2006), the Supreme
Court held that exhaustion ofadministrative remedies must be done "properly," which
means going through all steps that the agency holds out, obeying all directions, and
adhering to all deadlines set by the administrative rules. Id. at 90.
The Kentucky Department of Corrections Grievance Procedure, as presented
in Corrections Policy and Procedure ("CPP") 14.6, prescribes a number of steps that
are involved in a medical grievance.
The process begins with the filing of a
grievance, which leads to an attempt at resolution through informal means. If the
inmate is not satisfied, he may request a review by the Health Care Grievance
Committee. Ifthe inmate is not satisfied with the Health Care Grievance Committee's
recommendation, he may appeal to the Department ofCorrections Medical Director's
Office for a final administrative review. See CPP 14.6(II)(K). If the inmate is not
satisfied with the decision of the KDOC Medical Director, the final decision in the
administrative review process, then the PLRA authorizes the filing ofa civil lawsuit.
In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,214-15 (2007), the Supreme Court held that
failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense under the PLRA,
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In this case, the Defendants have raised Plaintiffs failure to
3
exhaust as an affinnative defense, and, in response thereto, Plaintiffhas not rebutted
that defense with any evidence indicating that he had exhausted his administrative
remedies prior to filing the present complaint.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Defendant's motion to dismiss [D.E. No.4] is GRANTED.
(2)
Plaintiff Jason Russell's Complaint, [D. E. No.2], is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
(3)
Plaintiffs motion for a status conference and!or a hearing on defendant's
motion to dismiss [D. E. No.7] is DENIED as MOOT;
(4)
This action is DISMISSED from the docket of the Court; and
(5)
Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order in favor of the defendants.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?