Johnson v. CERT (MCT) a.k.a Black Team et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting 72 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 76 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 78 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 5/5/14. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (WS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN (JACKSON) DIVISION
MARCUS J. JOHNSON

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-980-FKB

CERT (MCT) a.k.a. Black Team, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the motions for summary judgment [72,76 and 78] filed
by certain defendants. Having considered the parties’ filings, the Court concludes that the
motions are well taken and are hereby granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this Section 1983 action alleging that his constitutional
rights were violated during his incarceration at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility
(EMCF). More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to excessive force, inhumane
living conditions, denial of medical treatment, and deprivation of his property without due
process of law. [1]. An omnibus hearing1 was held on June 6, 2013, during which Plaintiff
testified regarding his claims. All parties consented to the undersigned hearing this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

1

The Court held what is known as a “Spears Hearing” in this claim brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983, to insure Plaintiff had every opportunity to fully explain his claim against
Defendants. Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
1

EXHAUSTION
The various defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment for a myriad of
reasons. However, the issue of exhaustion, raised in the motion at Docket No. 78, must be
examined first.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires prisoners to
exhaust any available administrative remedies prior to filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006); see also Johnson v. Ford, 261 Fed. Appx. 752, 755
(5th Cir. 2008)(stating that the Fifth Circuit takes “a strict approach” to the PLRA’s exhaustion
requirement)(citing Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir. 2003)). In Booth v. Churner,
532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), the Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, revised as a part of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), requires an inmate to exhaust
administrative remedies before bringing an action with respect to prison conditions, regardless of
the relief offered through administrative procedures. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741. The United States
Supreme Court has reiterated this position, holding that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is
mandatory and applies to all inmate suits about prison life. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516
(2002); see also Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff’s testimony at the omnibus hearing was clear that he did not exhaust. [76-1] at
55-56. Though Plaintiff may have misunderstood the applicable two-step administrative remedy
process, since he seemed to be testifying that his grievance was rejected for a procedural reason
at the first step and therefore he could file with this Court as his second step, the fact remains
that he did not exhaust administrative remedies.

2

In support of their motion, Defendants submitted the affidavit of Rebecca Naidow,
Administrative Remedy Program Clerk at EMCF. In her affidavit, Ms. Naidow addresses each
of Plaintiff’s claims and as to each, she testifies that Plaintiff’s “has not had any grievances
regarding [the claim] ... accepted into the ARP process” and that “he has not completed the ARP
process regarding [the claims].... Plaintiff failed to show that he filed any grievance(s) or
completed the ARP process on his claims asserted in this case. [80]. Accordingly, this case is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 5th day of May, 2014.

/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3