Grimes v. Simpson et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 7/11/2011; re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jasis Bryon ; an appropriate order shall issuecc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-109
RODNEY GRIMES
PLAINTIFF
v.
THOMAS SIMPSON, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Byron Jasis’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket #17). Plaintiff has responded (Docket #18). Defendant has replied (Docket
#19). This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Rodney Grimes is a convicted inmate at the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP).
On March 19, 2010, Grimes filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against KSP officials Thomas Simpson, Holbert Huddelston, Gregory Howard, Michael
Splindor, and Jasis Bryon.1 On August 26, 2010, the Court conducted an initial review of
Grimes’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114, F.3d
601 (6th Cir. 1997). The Court allowed Grimes’s official-capacity claims for injunctive relief
and individual-capacity claims for all relief to continue against Defendant Jasis. The Court
dismissed all claims against the remaining defendants.
Grimes alleges that Defendant Jasis violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights by removing him from his clean cell on 13-Left Walk and placing him in a dirty cell on
1
Defendant’s motion indicates that his correct name is Byron Jasis.
two occasions. On the first occasion, Grimes alleges that the cell was contaminated with another
inmate’s feces and urine spread all over the walls, bed, desk, and floor. He further alleges that
Defendant Jasis refused to provide him with cleaning materials to properly clean his cell. He
was kept in that cell for one week. On the second occasion, Grimes alleges that he was forced
out of his clean cell and forced to live in an unclean environment, the size of a bathroom, with
dust, germs and trash in the air duct contaminating his food. He was refused proper cleaning
supplies and forced to use unclean mop water which had been used by 19 other inmates to clean
their urine and feces. Grimes alleges he was moved from his clean cell so that a white inmate
could have it.
Defendant Jasis has moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court
now considers this motion.
STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must resolve
all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. See Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
“[N]ot every issue of fact or conflicting inference presents a genuine issue of material
fact.” Street v. J. C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1477 (6th Cir. 1989). The test is whether
the party bearing the burden of proof has presented a jury question as to each element in the
case. Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 1996). The plaintiff must present more than a
mere scintilla of evidence in support of his position; the plaintiff must present evidence on which
2
the trier of fact could reasonably find for the plaintiff. See id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). Mere speculation will not suffice to defeat a motion for
summary judgment: “the mere existence of a colorable factual dispute will not defeat a properly
supported motion for summary judgment. A genuine dispute between the parties on an issue of
material fact must exist to render summary judgment inappropriate.” Moinette v. Elec. Data Sys.
Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1177 (6th Cir. 1996).
DISCUSSION
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006). The PLRA
mandates that inmates exhaust their administrative remedies before proceeding in federal court.
See Napier v. Laurel County, Ky., 636 F.3d 218, 222 (6th Cir. 2011). “‘There is no question that
exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in
court.’” Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199, 210 (2007)).
Defendant cites to Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedures 14.6 in noting that an
inmate challenging his conditions of confinement must first file a grievance, which is addressed
through informal resolution. CPP 14.6, DN 17-3, p. 7-9. Next, the inmate may request a formal
hearing with the grievance committee. Id. at 10. The inmate may then appeal to the Warden.
Id. at 12. Finally, the inmate may appeal to the Commissioner. Id.
In this case, Plaintiff attached three items which he claims are proof that he has exhausted
his remedies under the PLRA. The first document is an “Inmate Grievance Form” which
complains of the lack of nutritionally adequate food and that he has not been allowed to shower
3
or shave for one week. DN 18-8, p. 1. There is no indication that Plaintiff complained about a
dirty cell. The form is dated November 7, 2010, and there is no indication of any informal
resolution. Id. The second is a “Grievance Rejection Notice” which indicates that his grievance
is being returned to him because he failed to grieve each issue separately. Again, this document
does not indicate that the grievance was related to a dirty cell. Instead, it only states: “Each issue
must be grieved separately. Currently have one on showers.” DN 18-2, p. 1. The third
document is titled “Affidavit” and is not signed or dated. It states:
I have been in three cell house and I know inmate William Pennington. He is a
white inmate that plays in his feces. He wraps his feces up in newspapers and
puts it under his bunk bed. When I was there they had to make him take a shower
and order him to use the soap too. But they never would write him up for it.
DN 18-2, p. 2. There is no indication that this affidavit was written by Plaintiff. Moreover, even
if it was, it fails to address his own conditions of confinement.
The Court finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust his remedies pursuant to CPP 14.6 before
filing this lawsuit. As such, the Court may not hear his claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
An appropriate order shall issue.
July 11, 2011
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?