Baudoin v. Stogner

Filing 42

ORDER granting 40 Motion to Dismiss Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on 9/24/2012 (KW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
STEPHEN ANTHONY BAUDOIN

PLAINTIFF

V.

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-16-MTP

LAURA STOGNER

DEFENDANT
CONSOLIDATED WITH

STEPHEN ANTHONY BAUDOIN

PLAINTIFF

V.

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-17-MTP

LAURA STOGNER

DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Laura Stogner’s motion [40] to dismiss
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.1 The Plaintiff has not responded to the motion;
however, the Court adheres to Fifth Circuit precedent that an unopposed motion to dismiss may
not be granted absent a “clear record of delay or contumacious conduct.” Johnson v. Pettiford,
442 F.3d 917, 919 (5th Cir. 2006). Finding no such record, it is necessary for the Court to
examine the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims rather than to simply grant the Defendant’s motion as
unopposed. After careful review of the motion and applicable law, the Court finds that this case
should be dismissed for the reasons set forth below.

1 By Order dated February 1, 2012 the Court consolidated Civil Action Nos. 2:11‐cv‐16 and

2:11‐cv‐17. Doc. 25. The instant motion to dismiss is docketed as Doc. [40] in Civil Action
No. 2:11‐cv‐16 and as Doc. [31] in Civil Action No. 2:11‐cv‐17.

1

Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Stephen Anthony Baudoin, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in this Court on January 24, 2011. This lawsuit arises from events,
which occurred while Baudoin was a pre-trial detainee at Marion Walthall Correctional Facility
(“MWCF”) in Columbia, Mississippi. Baudoin was housed at MWCF from April 2010 to April
2011. The defendant in this case, Laura Stogner, is a nurse at MWCF.
In his complaint and as clarified by his testimony at the Spears2 hearing, Baudoin alleges
that Nurse Stogner administered a tuberculosis test on him in December 2010. Baudoin believed
the test was free of charge; however, his inmate account was charged $6.00 for the test. After
learning of the charge, Baudoin complained to Nurse Stogner. The charge was not removed
from his account. Baudoin did not follow the grievance procedure at MWCF, but instead
initiated the instant lawsuit. He requests that Stogner return $6.00 to his inmate account. In
addition, the Plaintiff asserts a claim against Stogner for the way in which she administered the
tuberculosis test and measured the results. Baudoin argues that Stogner was negligent, but states
that she did not wrongfully administer the test or measure its results in any deliberate or
purposeful manner. The Plaintiff seeks $2,700,000 in damages for his medical claim.

Legal Authority
The exhaustion provision under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a) states as follows:

2
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) (stating that the claims made by a plaintiff
during an Ominibus hearing supercede those alleged in the complaint). A Spears hearing was
held in this case on May 30, 2012.

2

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.
This provision applies to “all inmate suits about prison life.” Porter, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122
S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed. 2d 12 (2002). The main purpose of the PLRA is “to promote administrative
redress, filter out groundless claims, and foster better prepared litigation of claims aired in
court…” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 528, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed. 2d 12 (2002) (citing
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001)).

Discussion
In support of her motion, Stogner submits the Inmate Grievance Procedure used by
MWCF to “administratively remedy” inmate complaints and grievances. Doc. [40-2] at 3. The
procedure requires inmates wishing to file a complaint to first (1) request a grievance form from
the on-duty jailer; then, (2) complete the top and bottom portions of the form, detailing the
incident, parties involved, and what actions would be required to resolve the issue. Doc. [40-2] at
4. Thereafter, the “deputy on duty will enter the required information on the lower portion of the
form and return it to the inmate as his recipient.” Id. Following this, a panel reviews the
grievance form and renders a decision. Id. Prisoners are able to appeal unfavorable decisions to
the sheriff. Id.
The record in this case does not show that Baudoin filed any grievances with regard to
the claims he asserts against Nurse Stogner. In its June 1, 2012 Omnibus Order, the Court
instructed the Defendant to perform a search to determine whether there were any documents
requesting administrative remedy related to the events giving rise to this lawsuit. Doc. [37] at 3.
The Defendant completed its investigative search, but was unable to find any such material. See
Doc. [39]. The Plaintiff does not allege that he followed the MWCF Inmate Grievance

3

Procedure. It appears that Baudoin only complained to Nurse Stogner regarding the charge to his
inmate account. After the charge was not removed, Baudoin filed this lawsuit without availing
himself to the Inmate Grievance Procedure. Since Baudoin did not exhaust the available
administrative remedy, he failed to comply with the PLRA. Accordingly, he cannot maintain
this lawsuit.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure
to exhaust is well taken and shall be granted. A separate judgment will be entered this day as
required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
This the 24th day of September, 2012.

/s/MICHAEL T. PARKER
.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

4