Summary
This federal district court order addresses a defendant's motion for summary judgment concerning whether the pro se plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. The court outlines the procedural requirements for the plaintiff's response, including the need for evidentiary support under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and a separate statement of disputed facts per Local Rule 56.1. The plaintiff is granted until July 14, 2025, to file his response, with notice that failure to comply may result in deemed admissions or dismissal without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit
- Whether the plaintiff’s response complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and Local Rule 56.1
Key quotations
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” (at 1)
“See Crossley v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 355 F.3d 1112, 1113-14 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming the grant of summary judgment because a plaintiff failed to properly refer to specific pages of the record that supported his position).” (at 1)
Factual background
Spencer Johnson, a pro se prisoner, sued James Gibson and others alleging violations of his prison conditions. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending Johnson had not exhausted the required grievance process before filing suit.
Procedural history
Plaintiff Spencer Johnson filed a civil rights action on 13 December 2024. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court issued this order setting deadlines for the plaintiff's response.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff must file a response to the motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion and a separate short and concise statement of disputed facts by July 14, 2025.