Williams v. Smith

Filing 32

OPINON and ORDER denying 31 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 10/16/2017. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
TRAVIS E. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. SMITH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:16CV00227
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Travis E. Williams, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Travis E. Williams, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed
this civil action, alleging that while he was at Red Onion State Prison (“Red
Onion”), the defendant, Dr. Smith, acted with deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs related to his injured hand. I granted Dr. Smith’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on the ground that Williams had failed to exhaust
administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) before filing this
court action. Williams has now moved to alter or amend that judgment. I find his
motion to be without merit.
Because Williams signed and dated his motion within 28 days from entry of
the judgment, I must construe it as arising under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. It is well established that “reconsideration of a judgment after its
entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v.

Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). A
judgment may be amended under Rule 59(e) in only three circumstances: (1) to
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice. See, e.g., Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 547 F.3d
230, 241 n. 8 (4th Cir. 2008).

Williams has not demonstrated any of these

circumstances here.
The evidence established that Dr. Smith was Williams’ treating physician at
Red Onion between August 26 and September 29, 2015. In early October 2015,
Williams was transferred to River North Correctional Center (“River North”). On
September 30, 2015, Williams filed an Informal Complaint about Dr. Smith’s
decision that nothing could be done about the broken bone in Williams’ hand. On
October 22, Williams submitted a Regular Grievance on the same issue to River
North officials. The grievance coordinator rejected and returned it in late October
because the procedures require that a grievance about Red Onion events must be
submitted to Red Onion. When Williams filed a new Regular Grievance with Red
Onion on October 30, it was rejected for being filed outside the 30-day filing
deadline under the grievance procedures.
In his current motion, Williams admits that he did not exhaust administrative
remedies by properly completing the Regular Grievance procedure and available
-2-

appeals.

Instead, he argues that his transfer made the remedies procedures

unavailable to him. 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 offers no evidence, however, that any circumstance beyond his control
prevented him from submitting his October 22 Regular Grievance directly to Red
Onion officials as required under the grievance procedures. Therefore, I cannot
find that he has demonstrated that the procedure was unavailable to him.
Accordingly, for lack of cause shown, it is ORDERED that the motion (ECF No.
31) is DENIED.
ENTER: October 16, 2017
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-3-