Williams v. Smith
OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 5/22/2017. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
TRAVIS E. WILLIAMS,
Case No. 7:16CV00227
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Travis E. Williams, Pro Se Plaintiff; Mary Foil Russell, Russell Law Firm,
Bristol, Virginia, for Defendant.
Travis E. Williams, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Liberally construed, Williams’ Complaint
alleges that the defendant, a prison doctor, acted with deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
After review of the record, I conclude that Williams is barred from pursuing his
§ 1983 claims because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
filing this action.
The defendant, Dr. Smith, has filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the
alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that Williams failed to
exhaust administrative remedies, thus barring his action. Williams has responded
to the motion, making it ripe for disposition.
The following facts, taken from the record, are largely undisputed.
Williams’ claims arise from the course of medical treatment that the defendant, Dr.
Smith, provided to him for an injured hand at Red Onion State Prison (“Red
Onion”). Dr. Smith examined Williams on August 26, 2015, for an injury to his
Dr. Smith ordered an X ray of the hand and prescribed a pain
medication, Naproxen 500, to be taken two times a day for four months. The X ray
showed no fracture or dislocation.
On September 20, 2015, Dr. Smith examined Williams for complaints of an
injury to his left hand. Dr. Smith noted pain and swelling and ordered an X ray.
The X ray showed a fracture of the left third metacarpal with mild displacement,
but no dislocation. Dr. Smith discussed the X ray results with Williams at a follow
up examination on September 29, 2015. Dr. Smith noted that at that time, the hand
was healing, with decreased swelling, and showed a functional range of motion.
The doctor explained that one treatment option was to continue the pain
medication and an anti-inflammatory, rest the hand, and restrict activities to allow
the bone to heal. Williams requested a stronger pain medication, but Dr. Smith
elected to leave the prescription for Naproxen in effect.
Dr. Smith did not see Williams again after the September 29, 2015 visit. On
October 7, 2015, officials transferred Williams to River North Correctional Center
(“River North”), with an order of Naproxen in effect. The Medical Transfer Form
completed at Red Onion stated that Williams’ current medical problem requiring
attention was “ND FX left hand-eczema.” 1 Wells Aff. ¶ 9, ECF No. 20-3. The
physician at River North reviewed Williams’ medications on December 14, 2015,
and renewed the prescription for Naproxen. When Williams was transferred from
the general population to segregation on March 4, 2016, no physical injuries were
noted in his records.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), among other things, provides
in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) that a prisoner cannot bring a civil action concerning
prison conditions until he has first exhausted available administrative remedies.
This exhaustion requirement is “mandatory,” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856
(2016), and “applies to all inmate suits about prison life.” Porter v. Nussle, 534
U.S. 516, 532 (2002). To comply with § 1997e(a), an inmate must follow each
step of the established grievance procedure that the facility provides to prisoners
During an intake interview that day, Nurse Wells completed an Intra-system
Transfer Medical Review of Williams’ condition and noted “no obvious trauma [and] no
voiced complaints.” Id. ¶ 10. Disputing Wells’ notes, Williams states that he told Wells
about his left hand injury and she said he would be seen by a doctor. Williams also
alleges that he continuously complained at River North about severe pain in his hand.
and meet all deadlines within that procedure before filing his § 1983 action. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-94 (2006). Even if the particular form of relief
the inmate seeks in his lawsuit is not available through the prison’s grievance
proceedings, he must, nevertheless, exhaust properly all available remedies under
that procedure before bringing a civil action in this court. Booth v. Churner, 532
U.S. 731, 741 (2001).
Operating Procedure 866.1 is the written administrative remedies procedure
that Virginia Department of Corrections inmates must follow to comply with
§ 1997e(a). Under this procedure, an inmate with a grievance about some event or
issue must first make a good faith effort to resolve his concerns informally,
normally by completing an informal complaint form and submitting it to prison
He should receive a written response on the bottom of the informal
complaint form within fifteen days. Then, he can initiate the next step — a regular
grievance, with the informal complaint attached.
A regular grievance must be filed within 30 days of the occurrence about
which it complains. OP 866.1 provides that if the inmate has been transferred to a
different prison facility, he must submit the informal complaint and regular
grievance forms to the facility where the grieved issue originated.
investigation of the regular grievance, the warden or his designee will send the
inmate a Level I response. If the responding official determines the grievance to
be “unfounded,” for full exhaustion, the inmate must appeal that holding to Level
II, the regional administrator, and in some cases, to Level III.
If a regular grievance does not meet the filing requirements of OP 866.1, the
grievance coordinator will reject the document at intake, mark the reason for the
rejection on the back of the form, and return it to the inmate within two days. The
inmate can appeal the intake rejection decision to the regional ombudsman. Proper
exhaustion, however, requires the inmate to properly file a regular grievance and
pursue it through the highest applicable level of appeal within the time limits at
Williams filed an informal complaint about Dr. Smith’s treatment decisions
on September 30, 2015, stating:
A few days ago I was seen by the doctor regarding the x-ray results of
my left hand. I was informed that nothing can be done about the
broken bone in my hand, however, I believe otherwise. I’m having
trouble with my hand and experiencing regular pain, therefore I’m
requesting that proper care and re-setting of the broken bone be
granted. Thank you.
V.S. App. 1, ECF No. 2. V. Phipps responded on October 17, 2015: “I spoke with
Dr. Smith and your hand can’t be set because of the way it[’]s broken.” Id.
On October 22, 2015, Williams filed a regular grievance at River North,
On 9/30/15 while still housed at [Red Onion] I filed a complaint
regarding a broken bone in my hand and the [Red Onion]’s medical
department’s refusal to provide me with proper care and re-setting of
the broken bone. On 10/14/15 [Red Onion]’s medical department
responded stating that my hand can’t be . . . set because of the way it’s
broken . . . thus, depriving me of proper medical care. . . .
Id. at App. 2. Williams asked to have his hand set.
The River North grievance department stamped Williams’ regular grievance
as received on October 28, 2015. The response, also dated October 28, advised
him that a grievance about something that occurred at Red Onion would have to be
submitted to Red Onion.
Williams wrote a second regular grievance on the same issue, dated October
29, 2015, and sent it to Red Onion. The Red Onion grievance officer received and
rejected this grievance on November 3, 2015, because the 30-day filing period had
expired. The officer also noted: “[Red Onion] does not have your medical records
to review, therefore you should see the doctor at [River North] to inquire about
treatment. If you are still dissatisfied, file a grievance with [River North].” Id. at
Williams filed appeals from the intake decisions on both of his regular
grievances. The regional ombudsman upheld the reason for rejection of his initial
grievance as having been submitted to the wrong institution and also advised
Williams that “[y]our issue is a request for medical service” as another reason for
rejection of his regular grievance. Id. at App. 2. The ombudsman suggested that
Williams consult with River North medical staff about treatment for his hand. The
ombudsman rejected the appeal of the October 29 grievance as untimely filed. Id.
at App. 3.
Dr. Smith asserts that Williams failed to exhaust administrative remedies on
his complaints about Dr. Smith’s treatment of his hand at Red Onion. I must
Williams has submitted his Verified Statement Form indicating that he
exhausted available administrative remedies.
The undisputed remedy forms
attached to that form, however, demonstrate that he did not properly do so. The
evidence is that Williams failed to submit his first regular grievance raising his
complaint about Dr. Smith to Red Onion officials as clearly required by the
grievance procedure. Instead, he improperly submitted his first grievance at River
North. Then, he submitted his second regular grievance to Red Onion outside the
30-day time limit under the procedure. Thus, taking as true the documentary
evidence he himself submitted with his Complaint, I can only conclude that
Williams did not properly complete the available remedies under OP 866.1.
The defendants bear the burden of proving the affirmative defense that
Williams failed to exhaust available administrative remedies regarding his claims
before filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). They have done so.
Williams could escape summary judgment under § 1997e(a) if he had stated facts
showing that the remedies under the established grievance procedure were not
“available” to him. Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859 (noting that circumstances making
prison grievance procedures unavailable “will not often arise”). Generally, “an
administrative remedy is not considered to have been available if a prisoner,
through no fault of his own, was prevented from availing himself of it.” Moore v.
Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008). Williams states that he “utilized his
due diligence in the matter of exhausting his administrative remedies, and the fact
that [he] was transferred to a new facility was out of [his] control.” Pl.’s Mem. 6,
ECF No. 23-1. However, he fails to present facts showing that his transfer or any
other action by officials prevented him from submitting his first regular grievance
directly to Red Onion in compliance with OP 866.1.
For the stated reasons, I cannot find that Williams properly exhausted his
administrative remedies before filing this action or that the Red Onion grievance
procedure was unavailable to him in any respect. Furthermore, I find it clear from
the record that Williams no longer has an available administrative remedy
regarding Dr. Smith’s actions or omissions in September 2015. Accordingly, I will
grant Dr. Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 2 and dismiss Williams’ claims
against him with prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
An award of summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining whether to grant a motion for
A separate Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: May 22, 2017
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
summary judgment, the court must take the non-movant’s evidence as true and draw “all
justifiable inferences” from the evidence in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
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?