Adams v. Campbell et al

Filing 49

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 18 HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Chantey Goddert, Robert Griggs, Doug Prudden and Melissa Vetter's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18 ] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Count II is dismissed. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 03/13/13. (CLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN Q. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY CAMPBELL, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:12CV24 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Chantey Goddert, Robert Griggs,
Doug Prudden and Melissa Vetter’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18].
Plaintiff John Q. Adams did not file an opposition to said motion.
Plaintiff John Q. Adams is an inmate at Northeast Correctional Center in the
Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDC”). At all relevant times, Plaintiff was
incarcerated within the MDC. On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff brought a two count
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § § 1981, 1983, 1985, 2000 and the Civil Rights Act of
1876, 1964 and 2000. Count I alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
against Defendants Gary Campbell, T. Bredman, Thomas Cabrera and Corizon
Medical Services, Inc. Count II alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
and tacit authorization thereof by Defendants Goddert, Griggs, Prudden and Vetter.1

1

All four of the defendants named in Count II are employees of the Missouri
Department of Corrections; therefore, they will be referred to as “MDC Defendants” hereafter.

The MDC Defendants move for summary judgment due to Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner may not
bring an action under §1983 “until such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” “An inmate exhausts a claim by taking advantage of each step the prison
holds out for resolving the claim internally and by following the ‘critical procedural
rules’ of the prison’s grievance process to permit prison officials to review and, if
necessary, correct the grievance ‘on the merits’ in the first instance.” Reed-Bey v.
Pramstaller, 603 F.3d 322, 324 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.
81, 95 (2006)). “The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is not a heightened pleading
requirement.” Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005). Exhaustion is
“an affirmative defense that the defendant has the burden to plead and to prove.
Likewise, a lack of exhaustion does not deprive federal courts of subject matter
jurisdiction.” Id.
The MDC has an administrative grievance process that inmates must follow in
order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. “To initiate this process, an inmate must
file an Informal Resolution Request (“IRR”) within fifteen days of the date of the
incident giving rise to the IRR.” Wewerka v. Roper, 2010 WL 4628093, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. Nov. 8, 2010). If the inmate is dissatisfied with the MDC’s response to the IRR,
the inmate may file an Offender Grievance within seven working days of receiving the

2

response. Id. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the response to the Grievance, the inmate
may file, within seven days of receiving the response, a Grievance Appeal. Id. If the
inmate fails to file a timely appeal, the appeal is considered abandoned. Id. “Only after
the inmate receives a response to his Appeal is the administrative grievance procedure
exhausted.” Id.
Based on the record, and with regard to Plaintiff’s Count II against the MDC
Defendants, Plaintiff failed to file an IRR altogether. Plaintiff has failed to respond to
MDC Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, and has failed to offer any evidence
to the contrary. As such, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrated remedies as
required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); therefore, he is precluded from bringing Count II
against the MDC Defendants.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Chantey Goddert, Robert Griggs,
Doug Prudden and Melissa Vetter’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Count II is dismissed.
Dated this 13th day of March, 2013.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3