Harrison v. Sachse et al
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court has reviewed plaintiff's "Motion in Opposition of Defendant's Motion to Dismissal" [Doc. # 36 ] and finds that the Memorandum and Order and Order of Dismiss al [Doc. # 33 and # 34 ] entered on February 24, 2016, was appropriate and need not be modified in light of the arguments contained in plaintiff's motion in opposition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's post-dismissal request for appointment of counsel [Doc. # 36 ] is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on March 2, 2016. (BRP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
KEVIN L. HARRISON,
JENNIFER SACHSE, et al.,
No. 4:15CV631 AGF
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the filing of plaintiff’s “Motion in Opposition of
Defendant’s Motion to Dismissal.” [Doc. #36].1
The Court notes that due to a clerical error, plaintiff’s motion was not docketed by the
Court until March 1, 2016. However, it appears to have been received in the Clerk’s Office on
January 26, 2016.2 This matter was dismissed by the Court on February 24, 2016, prior to the
Court’s receipt and consideration of plaintiff’s motion in opposition. [Doc. #33 and #34].
Accordingly, the Court will review plaintiff’s assertions in opposition to see if they have any
impact on the Court’s decision to dismiss this matter.
In its prior Memorandum and Order, after a thorough analysis of the record in this matter,
the Court found that plaintiff had failed to exhaust all of his prison remedies against defendants
Jeffrey Hawthorn and Rocky Gall prior to filing this suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. §
1997(e)(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136, 1141 (8th Cir.
2014). The Court additionally found that defendant had failed to exhaust his prison remedies
Attached to plaintiff’s motion in opposition is correspondence to this Court regarding the status of
plaintiff’s case, as well as what could be construed as a request for counsel. As this case has been
dismissed, plaintiff’s post-dismissal request for counsel will be denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s motion in opposition appears to have been placed in the prison mailing system on
January 19, 2016.
against defendant Williams prior to bringing the present lawsuit, as he had failed to file any IRRs
or grievances against him with respect to the claims in the present lawsuit regarding the alleged
deliberate indifference to his medical needs that purportedly occurred on or about December 17,
In the motion in opposition presently before the Court, plaintiff asserts that “no other
medical grievance was needed regarding the May 2015 care.” Thus, plaintiff’s opposition motion
appears to be directed at defendant Williams’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) in support of his assertion, with the
claim that “supplemental pleadings, not amended pleadings, are intended to cover matters
occurring after the original complaint is filed.” The Court is confused by plaintiff’s assertions, as
the events alleged in the complaint occurred on December 17, 2014. Thus, according to the rules
governing the administrative procedure process within the Missouri Department of Corrections,
plaintiff must have filed his Informal Resolution Request relating to the occurrence against
defendant Williams within fifteen (15) days of the occurrence. See Porter v. Sturm, 781 F.3d 448
(8th Cir. 2015) (recognizing the steps in Missouri Department of Correction’s administrative
procedure process and the time periods involved in each step). As the Court found after review of
all of plaintiff’s medical grievances filed while he has been incarcerated at MECC, none of the
IRRs or grievances filed by plaintiff include the claims at issue in the present lawsuit. As a result,
the Court is still persuaded that this action should be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to properly
and fully exhaust his prison remedies.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court has reviewed plaintiff’s “Motion in
Opposition of Defendant’s Motion to Dismissal” [Doc. #36] and finds that the Memorandum and
Order and Order of Dismissal [Doc. #33 and #34] entered on February 24, 2016, was appropriate
and need not be modified in light of the arguments contained in plaintiff’s motion in opposition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s post-dismissal request for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #36] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2016.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?