Hemingway v. Hill et al
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment, [No. 21], is GRANTED. Hemingway's claims against all defendants are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants motion to stay, 29 , is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/27/18. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
LAMON TANEAL HEMINGWAY,
SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NINA HILL, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:17 CV 51 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants Mark Curran, Nina Hill, Cynthia Reese, and Heather Shirrell
move for summary judgment against Plaintiff Lamon Hemingway’s § 1983 claims.
[No. 20]. Defendants argue that Hemingway failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Hemingway has not responded to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. After carefully reviewing the arguments, I find that Hemingway failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies and will dismiss his claims.
BACKGROUND
Hemingway, a former inmate at Missouri’s Southeast Correctional Center
(SECC), filed this suit pro se on March 30, 2017, while he was still at the SECC.
Hemingway was released from SECC on December 2, 2017. In his complaint,
Hemingway alleges deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, cruel and
unusual punishment, inhumane and indecent living conditions, and retaliation for
filing complaints. Defendants moved for summary judgment on November 15,
2017. At Hemingway’s request, I extended the deadline for him to file his response
to the motion for summary judgment to January 6, 2018. [No. 25]. I also granted
Hemingway leave to amend his complaint by January 2, 2018. [No. 25].
Hemingway failed to file both his response and his amended complaint by the
required time. On April 5, 2018, I ordered Hemingway to show cause why I should
not grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment by April 20, 2018. As of
Wednesday, April 25, 2018, Hemingway has not responded to my order.
LEGAL STANDARD
The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that
there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Lynn v. Deaconess Med. Ctr., 160 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1998);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c). Once the moving party has met this burden, the
nonmoving party may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings, but by affidavit or
other evidence, must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of
material fact exists. Celotext Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)(1), (e). “If a party fails to . . . properly address another party’s
assertion of fact,” I may consider the fact undisputed and grant summary judgment
if the facts and arguments show the movant is entitled to it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
2
ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that Hemingway failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies and that his claim is therefore barred by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act. “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Hemingway claims that SECC
personnel prevented him from exhausting administrative remedies. (Complaint,
No. 1 at 5 (“I am not allowed to utilize this prisons (sic) grievance system – per
orders of the Assistant Warden, classification staff, etc.”)). The Missouri
Department of Corrections’ (MDOC) grievance procedure allows inmates to
proceed directly to administrative appeal if an offender believes he is being
reprised against for participating in the grievance process.
Hemingway has offered no evidence that “any prison official thwarted an
attempt to initiate the procedures or that any official made it impossible for them to
file grievances.” Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005). In contrast,
defendants provide evidence that Hemingway has filed no grievance related to the
claims he presents in this suit. (Grievance Records, No. 22-3). Hemingway’s
grievance records indicate that he only filed one grievance while at the SECC for
3
an unrelated issue. (Id.). As a result, I find that Hemingway did not exhaust his
administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, [No. 21], is GRANTED. Hemingway’s claims against all defendants
are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay, [29], is
DENIED as moot.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 27th day of April, 2018.
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?