Tillis v. Management and Training Corp. et al
Filing
21
ORDER granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on September 4, 2015. (ES)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
ZENAS TILLIS
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15cv18-MTP
MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [16] filed by
Defendants Tira Jackson, Management Training Corporation, Frank Shaw, and Gabriel Walker.
Having considered the motion and applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion [16] should be
GRANTED and this matter dismissed without prejudice.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Zenas Tillis, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a post-conviction inmate
in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and is currently housed at
the Wilkinson County Correctional Facility (“WCCF”) in Woodville, Mississippi. Tillis filed the
instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on or about February 11, 2015. In his
Complaint, Tillis makes alleges regarding the conditions of his confinement. Specifically, Tillis
complains of excessive “lockdown” periods, problems with heating and cooling, problems with
plumbing, unsanitary conditions, insufficient lighting, excessive noise, and inadequate opportunities
to shower or exercise. He also complains that WCCF is understaffed, resulting in violence among
the inmates.1
Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2015, in which they assert
1
See generally Complaint [1].
1
that this matter should be dismissed because Tillis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.2
The parties appeared and participated in a Spears3 hearing on July 29, 2015, where the Court heard
arguments regarding the Defendants’ motion and ordered Tillis to respond.4 The Court also issued
a written order to the same effect, which cautioned Tillis that if he did not respond on or before
August 11, 2015, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment would be considered without a
response.5 This deadline has now expired without any submission from Tillis.
STANDARD
A motion for summary judgement will be granted when “the record indicates that there is
‘no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.’” Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing FED.
R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). “The moving party must show
that if the evidentiary material of record were reduced to admissible evidence in court, it would be
insufficient to permit the nonmoving party to carry its burden.” Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental
Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir. 2000). The court must view “the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. However, the nonmoving party “cannot defeat summary
judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or ‘only a scintilla of evidence.’”
Turner v. Baylor Richardson Medical Center, 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)). In the absence of proof, the Court does not
2
See Motion for Summary Judgment [16] and Supporting Memorandum [17].
3
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
4
See Minute Entry dated 7/29/2015.
5
See Order [19].
2
“assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts.” Little, 37 F.3d at 1075
(emphasis omitted). The nonmovant cannot survive a proper motion for summary judgment by
resting on the allegations in his pleadings. Isquith v. Middle South Utilities, Inc., 847 F.2d 186, 199
(5th Cir. 1988); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325-26. Instead, the nonmovant must present evidence
sufficient to support a resolution of the factual issues in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
ANALYSIS
Defendants claim that this matter should be dismissed because Tillis failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. 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. A prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement “by filing an untimely or
otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal” because “proper exhaustion
of administrative remedies is necessary.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006); “Indeed .
. . a prisoner must now exhaust administrative remedies even where the relief sought-monetary
damages-cannot be granted by the administrative process.” Id. at 85.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld the grant of summary
judgment where the evidence revealed that an inmate has not followed prison guidelines for filings
grievances and thus had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Stout v. North-Williams, 476
Fed. App’x 763, 765 (5th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, courts have been clear that a prisoner cannot
fulfill the exhaustion requirement through general allegations that he notified prison officials of a
violation, rather, he must follow the process set forth by the prison. See, e.g., Woodford, 548 U.S.
at 83-84; Johnson v. Ford, 261 Fed. App’x 752, 755 (5th Cir. 2008) (stating that the Fifth Circuit
3
takes a “strict approach” to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement); Lane v. Harris Cnty. Medical
Dep’t, No. 06-20935, 2008 WL 116333, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2008) (stating that under the PLRA,
the prisoner must comply with all administrative procedural rules). Pre-filing exhaustion is
mandatory, and the case must be dismissed if available administrative remedies were not exhausted.”
Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012). Because exhaustion is an affirmative defense,
Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative
remedies. Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010).
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-801 grants the MDOC the authority to adopt an administrative
review procedure at each of its correctional facilities. Pursuant to this statutory authority, the MDOC
has set up an Administrative Remedy Program (“ARP”) through which an offender may seek formal
review of a complaint relating to any aspect of their incarceration. The ARP is a two-step process.
Inmates are required to initially submit their grievances in writing to the Legal Claims Adjudicator
within thirty days of the incident. If, after screening, a grievance is accepted into the ARP, the
request is forwarded to the appropriate official, who will issue a First Step Response. If the inmate
is unsatisfied with this response, he may continue to the Second Step by using ARP form ARP-2 and
sending it to the Legal Claims Adjudicator. A final decision will be made by the Superintendent,
Warden, or Community Corrections Director. If the offender is not satisfied with the Second Step
Response, he may file suit in state or federal court. See Cannady v. Epps, No 3:04cv107-HTW-JCS,
2006 WL 1676141, at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 15, 2006).
The Court finds that Tillis has failed to properly exhaust his claims. Defendants offer the
sworn affidavit of Janice Fountain, an MDOC employee who works as the ARP Coordinator at
WCCF. In her affidavit, Fountain avers that Tillis has filed only one ARP while incarcerated at
4
WCCF, WCCF-15-150, which does not include any complaints regarding living conditions.6 Instead,
Grievance WCCF-15-150 appears to concern property that Tillis claims was lost or confiscated.7
One of the principal purposes of the administrative exhaustion requirement is to provide fair
notice to prison officials of an inmate’s specific complaints so as to provide “time and opportunity
to address complaints internally.” Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 517 (5th Cir. 2004). Because
WCCF-15-150 does not address the allegations contained in Tillis’s complaint, he cannot argue that
he properly exhausted his claims through that particular grievance. Furthermore, Defendants have
submitted records that reflect Tillis had only been at WCCF for approximately one week at the time
he filed his complaint, a considerably short of period of time in which to complete the two-step
MDOC grievance process.8 As outlined above, Tillis has failed to respond to Defendants’ summary
judgment motion, despite being ordered by this Court to do so, and has not offered any evidence
contradicting his ARP records.
Furthermore, Tillis has not demonstrated that exhaustion would have been futile or that
administrative remedies were unavailable. In his complaint, Tillis writes: “ARPS are sometimes
ignored or thrown away by officers making completion impossible.”9 However, Tillis offers no
evidence in support of this assertion, and as outlined above, he makes no such argument in response
to the motion for summary judgment.
Exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are appropriate where the available administrative
6
See Affidavit of Janice Fountain [16-1] at 1-2.
7
See ARP Records [16-1] at 4-7.
8
See Drill Down Detail Report [16-2] at 9.
9
See Complaint [1] at 3.
5
remedies are unavailable or wholly inappropriate to the relief sought, or where the attempt to
exhaust such remedies would itself be patently futile. Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994).
The Fifth Circuit has taken the position that exceptions to the exhaustion requirement only apply in
“extraordinary circumstances,” and that the prisoner bears the burden of demonstrating the futility
or unavailability of administrative review. Id.
The Court finds that Tillis has failed to carry his burden, as an unsupported assertion that
WCCF officers sometimes ignore or dispose of grievances falls far short of the “extraordinary
circumstances” required in order for an exception to the exhaustion requirement to apply.
Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law, and that this matter should be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1.
That the Motion for Summary Judgment [16] filed by Defendants Tira Jackson,
Management Training Corporation, Frank Shaw, and Gabriel Walker is GRANTED;
2.
That this matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice; and
3.
That a separate judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 will
be filed herein.
SO ORDERED this the 4th day of September, 2015.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?